uv^w Sc BOUND BY R. NELSON. I ; Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2018 with funding from Princeton Theological Seminary Library https://archive.org/details/institutesofmetaOOferr INSTITUTES OF METAPHYSIC THE THEORY OF KNOWING AND BEING J. F. FERRIER, A.B., OXON. PROFESSOR OF MORAL PHILOSOPHY AND POLITICAL ECONOMY, ST ANDREWS SECOND EDITION WILLIAM BLACKWOOD AND SONS EDINBUKGH AND LONDON MDCCCLVI y ’-yr' '-ro gaiififif .■,' *-n. S^l Jk ■•• 'iVt *1. ^ •• 'J. ■ • , : '• b •'• ' -- ‘ - . m ^ ■ ■ ^ ; W - ’ ’ ^:i - « ^ . . . . * . ^ '!>!/. ft/(l7/0Z/l W^Yn^HT ; ."m-B ^ « vv I If . *■• 1..V IC 4^.5' ,^1'*. *.VL.» _ . ‘ ‘ . \ * ^ ; U-‘ • 't'V .• V t • 'r * *■-, I ft!.v • ■ /! -:' y • » V-^.A ;.'t5lTaJ!5l’I 7i CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION. 1. The word “ Philosophy ” as here employed, .... I 2. The two main requisitions of philosophy, ..... I .3. Which of them is the more stringent, ..... 2 4. The value of systems determined by a reference to these requisitions, . 2 5. An unreasoned system of no value, because at variance with definition of philosophy, ........ 3 6. Because, though true, it cannot be certain, .... 3 7. Because of no use as a mental discipline, ..... 3 8. A reasoned system, though not true, has some value as an exercise of reason, ......... 4 9. It complies more closely with definition of philosophy than the other, . 4 10. But a system should be both true and reasoned, .... 5 11. Systems of philosophy are unreasoned hitherto, .... 6 12. The present state of philosophy described, ..... 6 13. First, How is this state to be explained ? Secondly, How remedied ? . 7 14. First, it is explained (§§ 14-31) by philosophy not being reasoned, . 8 15. No good can be expected so long as philosophy is not reasoned, . . 8 16. The masks of philosophy, ....... 9 17. Its unsatisfactory state further accounted for. The globe of speculation, 11 18. Explanation continued. First principles always come out last, . 12 19. Illustrations of this from language and grammar, .... 13 20. Illustration continued, ....... 14 21. Illustration from logic, . ...... 16 22. Illustration from law, ....... 15 23. Application to philosophy. Here, too, first principles come out last, . 16 24. These principles, though operative in philosophy, are unnoticed and un¬ known, ......... 17 25. Hence philosophy is nowhere a scheme reasoned throughout, . . 18 26. The repudiation of necessary truths, a further retarding cause, . . 19 27. What necessary truth is, . . . . . . .20 28. Its criterion is “ the law of contradiction. ” Law explained, . . 21 29. Its criterion is not ready acceptance, . . . . .22 30. Return. Philosophy deals with necessary truths — therefore retarded by their prescription, ...... .23 'Id VI CONTENTS. Page 31. How ill the necessary truths have fared in Germany and in our own country, ......... 24 32. Secondly, How is the unsatisfactory state of philosophy to be remedied ? Short answer, ........ 26 33. A remedial system uniting truth and reason, not impossible, . . 28 34. Single canon for the right use of reason, . . ... 28 35. This system of Institutes claims both truth and demonstration, but rather demonstration than truth, . . . . .29 36. It is a body of necessary truth. Its pretensions stated, ... 30 37. An objection to its method stated and obviated, .... 31 38. The polemical character of this system, ..... 31 39. Why philosophy must be polemical. She exists only to correct the inad¬ vertencies of ordinary thinking, . . . . . . 32 40. This might be abundantly proved by the testimony of philosophers, . 33 41. The object (or business to do) of philosophy renders her essentially polemical, ...... . . 33 42. The charge of disrespect which might be supposed to attach to philosophy on account of her polemical character, obviated, ... 34 43. This system also adverse to psychology — and why, ... 34 44. What philosophy has to do, again distinctly stated, ... 36 45. Its positive object still more distinctly stated. Definition of metaphysics, 36 46. Why philosophy undertakes this object, ..... 38 47. How philosophy goes to work. Adherence to canon — proposition and counter-proposition, ....... 38 48. Further explanations as to how philosophy goes to work, . . 40 49. Advantages of this method, ...... 41 50. Disadvantages of not contrasting distinctly the true and the false, . 41 51. General unintelligibility of systems is due to their neglect to exhibit this contrast, . . ....... 42 52. This system contrasts distinctly the true and the false, ... 45 53. The three sections of this institute. Arrangement explained and proved to be essential (§§ 54-62), ...... 46 64. The section called ontology naturally comes first, — but is truly last in order, ......... 46 65. It must be made to revolve away from us, in order to bring round the epistemology, which, though it naturally comes last, is truly first in order, ......... 47 56. Epistemology a,nA ontology the two main divisions of philosophy, . 49 57. The epistemology does of itself afford no entrance to ontology. Why not ? 49 58. Because “ Absolute Existence” may be that which we are ignorant of, . 50 59. This consideration necessitates a new section of philosophy called the agnoiology. Its business, ...... 50 60. Now we can settle the problem of ontology — and how, ... 51 61. Recapitulation of the three sections. 1. Epistemology. 2. Agnoiology. 3. Ontology. This arrangement not arbitrary, but necessary, . 52 62. The necessity of keeping these divisions perfectly distinct, . . 52 63. The natural oversights of thought are rectified in these three sections, . 53 64. Remarks obviating any objections to the system, on the ground that its conclusions cannot at all times be present to the mind, . . 54 65. Continuation of these remarks, ...... 56 66. Remark obviating any objection to this system on the score of presump¬ tion, ......... 58 CONTENTS. vii Page 67. Tlie indispensable extension of the necessary laws to all reason, . 59 68. An objection to the system on the score of inconsistency obviated, . 60 69. Objection retorted. The confusion of philosophers in regard to the con¬ ceivable and the inconceivable, ...... 61 70. This confusion illustrated, ....... 62 71. All other systems make game of the laws of thought, . . .63 72. The inconsistency of philosophers inextricable, . . . .64 73. Their laws of thought always turn out, at best, to be mere laws of ima¬ gination, . . ...... .65 74. This system does not make game of the laws of thought, . . 66 75. It abridges the grounds of controversy, . . . . .66 76. Conclusion of introduction explaining how the starting-point of philo¬ sophy is reached (§§ 76-85), ...... 67 77. How the starting-point is reached, ...... 67 78. Plato, in Theaetetus, fails to reach the starting-point, ... 68 79. Search for the starting-point, ...... 69 80. Why the question — What is knowledge ? cannot be the starting-point, . 71 81. This question resolved into two questions, .... 72 82. Which of them is question, — and the first in philosophy, . . 72 83. That philosophy has a starting-point is proved by the fact that its start¬ ing-point has been found, ...... 73 84. Starting-point must state the essential of knowledge. Experience may confirm, but reason alone can establish its truth, ... 74 85. Re-statement of the first or proximate question of philosophy, . . 74 86. Its answer is the absolute starting-point, and forms \X\% first proposition of these Institutes, . . , . . . .75 SECTION I. THE EPISTEMOI.OGT, OR THEORY OF KNOWING. PROPOSITION I. The Phjmaiiy Law or Condition of all Knowledge, ... 79 Observations and Explanations, ...... 79 1. Prop. I. answers the first question of philosophy, .... 79 2. It expresses the most gener.al and essential law of all knowledge, . . 80 3. It declares that self-consciousness is never entirely suspended when the mind knows anything, . .... . . 81 4. Objection that self-consciousness seems at times to be extinct, . . 81 5. Objection obviated. Proposition explained, . . . .81 6. Our apparent inattention to self accounted for by the principle of fami¬ liarity, ......... 82 7. Also by the consideration that the ego is no object of sensible experience, 84 8. A theory of self-consciousness at variance with Prop. I. refuted, . 85 9. Importance of Prop. I. as foundation of the whole system, . . 86 10. It is not refuted but rather confirmed by experience, ... 87 11. Its best evidence is reason, which fixes it as a necessary truth or axiom, . 87 12. First Coimter-proposi.tinn. ....... 89 VIU CONTENTS. Page 13. It embodies the result of ordinary thinking arid of popular psychology, 89 14. It is generally the starting-point of psychology, as Prop. I. is the start¬ ing-point of metaphysics, ...... 90 15. A mark of distinction between the propositions and the counter-propo¬ sitions, ......... 91 16. Prop. I. has some affinity to Pythagorean doctrine of numbers, . . 92 17. Misunderstanding as to Pythagorean doctrine, .... 93 18. Prop. I. a higher generalisation of the Pythagorean law, ... 94 19. Anticipations of Prop. I. by the philosophers of Germany, . . 94 PROPOSITION II. The Object of all Kmowledgb, ...... 97 Demonstration, ......... 97 Observations and Explanations, ...... 98 1. Reason for printing “ itself-in-union-with-whatever-it-apprehends ” as one word, ......... 98 2. By the object of knowledge is meant the whole object of knowledge, . 99 3. Change which an attention to the condition of knowledge effects upon the ohject of knowledge, ....... 100 4. Further illustrated by the speculative, as distinguished from the ordinary mode of enumeration, ....... 100 5. Second Counter-proposition, ...... 101 6. It is false, because counter-proposition I. is false, .... 102 7. It expresses the ordinary notion, and also, generally, the psychological opinion as to the object of knowledge, ..... 103 PROPOSITION III. The Inseparability of the Objective and the Subjective, . . 105 Demonstration, ......... 105 Observations and Explanations, ...... 106 1. Reasons for giving this proposition a prominent place in the system, . 106 2. What is meant by separability and inseparability in cognition, . . 107 3. A possible misapprehension obviated, ..... 108 4. Inseparability in cognition not to be confounded with inseparability in space ; the external and the internal, ..... 109 5. The unit of cognition explained. How it is determined, . . . 110 6. Importance of the words “ by itself,” or per xc, .... Ill 7. The unit of cognition further explained, . . . . .112 8. No essential but only an accidental difference between the minimum and the maximum of cognition, ...... 112 9. Third Counter -proposition, . . . . . .113 10. It embodies an inadvertency of natural thinking, .... 113 11. The psychological position more false and ambiguous than the natural inadvertency, 114 12. The psychological error acconnted for, ..... 115 V 13. Distinction of science of mind and science of matter characterised, . 115 14. Invalidity of counter-proposition III. Its origin, §§ 14, 15, 16, 17, . 116 15. Many things are distinguishable, which are not separable, in cognition, . 117 16. Illustrations applied to subject and object, .... 118 CONTENTS. ix Page 17. Further illustration, ....... 118 18. Short statement of what this proposition contends for, . . . 119 19. No opinion offered as to existence, ...... 120 PROPOSITION IV. Matter per se, ........ . 121 Demonstration, ......... 121 Observations and Explanations, ... ... 122 1. Idealism and materialism have their roots here, .... 122 2. Fourth Counter-proposition, ...... 122 3. It expresses common opinion as to our knowledge of matter per se, . 122 4. Oversight of self only apparent — not real and total, . . . 123 5. Psychological opinion as to our knowledge of matter per se, . . 123 6. Psychological materialism as founded on the four counter-propositions, 124 7. Fallacy of materialism. Possibility of idealism as founded on the four propositions, ........ 125 8. A preliminary question prejudged by materialist and by idealist, . 126 9. Cause of this precipitate judgment. Its evil consequences, . . 127 10. How Prop. IV. decides this preliminary question. How Counter-pro¬ position IV. decides it, . . . . . . . 128 11. Symbols illustrative of the position maintained by the Institutes, . 128 12. The same symbols as illustrative of the psj'chological position, . . 129 13. Different conciusions from the two positions, .... 130 14. Difference farther explained, ...... 131 15. Another point of difference between this system and psychology, . 132 16. Matter per se reduced to the contradictory, .... 134 17. This contradiction attaches not only to our knowledge of matter per se, 136 18. But to matter per se Itself, ...... 137 19. Advantage of this reduction. New light on the problem of philosophy, 139 20. Importance of finding the contradictory, ..... 140 21. In what sense the contradictory is conceivable, .... 141 22. Matter per se is not a nonentity, ...... 142 PROPOSITION V. Matter and its Qualities per se, . . . . . . 144 Demonstration, ......... 144 Observations and Explanations, ...... 144 1. Why Proposition V. is introduced, ..... 144 2. Fifth Counter-proposition, ..... . . 145 3. Distinction between the primary and the secondary qualities of matter, 146 4. Character of the secondary qualities, ..... 146 5. Character of the primary qualities, ..... 148 6. Defects of this distinction, ....... 149 7. It runs into a contradiction, ...... 151 8. Psychological conception of idealism, ..... 151 9. Psychological refutation of idealism, ..... 152 10. This refutation, if logically conclusive, is founded on a contradiction, and therefore cannot be accepted, ..... 154 11. The distinction of the primary and secondary qualities should be aban¬ doned as useless, or worse, ...... 155 b X CONTENTS. PROPOSITION VI. Page The Universal and the Particular in Cognition, Oe.monstration, ........ Observations and Explanations, ...... 1. Explanation of words, ....... 2. In what sense the contingent element is necessary, and in what sense it is contingent, ........ 3. Why this proposition is introduced, ..... 4. Question concerning the particular and the universal instead of being made a question of Knowing, ...... 5. Was made a question of being by the early philosophers. Thales, 6. Parmenides. What change he effected on the question, 7. It still related to Being — not to Knowing, .... 8. Indecision of Greek speculation. The three crises of philosophy, 9. Plato appeared during the second crisis. His aim, 10. The coincidence of the known and the existent must be proved, nbt guessed at, ........ 11. Plato’s deficiencies, ........ 12. His merits. The question respecting the particular and the universal demands an entire reconsideration, . . . . . 13. A preliminary ambiguity, ....... 14. Further statement of ambiguity, ...... 15. Illustration of the ambiguity, ...... 16. Is the Platonic analysis of cognition and existence a division into tie.- merits ov mio kinds ? ....... 17. Riglitly interpreted, it is a division into elements, 18. It has been generally mistaken for a division into kinds, 19. Explanation of this charge, ...... 20. Sixth Counter-proposition, ....... 21. This counter-proposition is itself a proof of the charge here made against philosophers, ........ 22. Review of our position, ....... 23. Misinterpretation of the Platonic analysis traced into its consequences, 24. Perplexity as to general existences, ..... 25. Realism, . . . . '. 26. Realism is superseded by Conceptualism, . . . . . 27. Conceptualism is destroyed by Nominalism, . . . . 28. Evasion by which conceptualism endeavours to recover her ground, and to conciliate nominalism. Its failure, ..... 29. Nominalism, ........ 30. Nominalism is annihilated by Proposition VI., . . . . 31. The summing up, ........ 32. The abstract and the concrete, ...... 156 157 157 15S 158 160 161 163 163 164 165 167 168 168 169 170 171 171 173 174 176 177 179 180 181 182 183 183 184 185 186 190 191 192 193 PROPOSITION VII. What the Universal and the Particular in Cognition are, . 196 Demonstration, ........ 196 Observations and Explanations, ...... 197 1. Why this Proposition is introduced, ..... 197 CONTENTS. 2. The ego is coextensive with the universal, matter is not coextensive with the particular, element, ....... 3. Another reason for introducing this proposition, .... 4. Remarkable that this proposition should not have been propounded long ago, ........ 5. The oversight accounted for. Effect of familiarity, 6. We study the strange rather than the familiar, hence truth escapes us, 7. Hence neglect of this proposition, ..... 8. Another circumstance which may have caused the neglect of this propo sition, ........ 9. The ego is the summum genus of cognition. Ontological generalisation, 10. Epistemological generalisation is very different, 11. The ego not a mere generalisation from experience, 12. Shortcoming of the Platonic ideas, .... 13. Perhaps the ego is the summum genus of existence as well as of cogni tion, ........ 14. The second clause of proposition has had a standing in philosophy from the earliest times, ...... 15. A ground of perplexity, ...... 16. Demur as to matter being the fluctuating in existence, 17. It is certainly the fluctuating in cognition, 18. The old philosophers held it to be both, .... 19. More attention should have been paid to their assertion that it was the fluctuating in cognition, ...... 20. Matter as the fluctuating in cognition : explained, 21. This is the fluctuation which epistemology attends to, 22. A hint as to its fluctuation in existence, .... 23. The ego as the non-fluctuating in cognition : explained, . 24. Seventh Counter-proposition, ..... 25. Expresses the contradictory inadvertency of ordinary thinking : illustra tion, ........ 26. Corrective illustration, ...... 27. Psychology adopts Counter-proposition VII., 28. And thereby loses hold of the only argument for immateriality, . PROPOSITION VIII. The Ego in Cognition, Demonstration, ..... Observations and Explanations, 1. A caveat, ..... 2. Important law of knowledge, 3. Materiality and immateriality. Eighth Counter-proposition, 4. Eighth counter-proposition the common property of materialist and spiritualist, .... 5. Early conception of mind as ’material. Ghosts, clairvoyance, spirit rapping, ........ 6. Conception of mind as material substance dismissed, 7. Conception of mind as result of organisation : phrenology, 8. The spiritualist’s conceptiou of mind is as null as the materialist’s, 9. Both parties hold mind to be particular, .... 10. It is known only as the universal, ..... xi Page 198 199 199 200 202 204 206 206 207 209 210 212 213 213 214 216 215 216 217 217 218 219 219 220 221 222 223 224 224 226 226 226 227 228 229 231 231 232 233 234 XU CONTENTS. Page 11. The materialist’s error consists in his holding mind to be particular, . 235 12. The spiritualist’s error consists in his holding mind to be particular, . 236 13. The two errors summed up, ...... 238 14. Recapitulation of the institutional proof of immateriality, . . 238 PROPOSITION IX. The Ego per sb, ........ 241 Demonstration, ........ 241 Observations and Explanations, ...... 242 1. Purport of this proposition in relation to Proposition I., . . 242 2. An objection started, ....... 242 3. Objection obviated, ....... 243 4. Anotlier objection obviated, ...... 244 5. David Hume outgoes this proposition, ..... 245 6. What this proposition contends for, ..... 246 7. The mind must always Itnow itself in, but not as, some determinate condition, ........ 246 8. Ninth Counter-proposition, ....... 248 9. Its twofold error, ........ 248 10. History of word “ essence.” Its meaning reversed by moderns, . 249 11. Consequences of this reversal — injustice to the old philosophers, . 250 12. Confusion and error to which the reversal has led, . . . 251 13. This proposition reduces the ego per se to a contradiction, . . 252 1 4. Why the word ego is used in these discussions, .... 253 15. The individual or monad, ....... 253 16. An objection obviated; ....... 254 17. Another objection obviated, ...... 255 PROPOSITION X. Sense and Intellect, ........ Demonstration, ......... Observations and Explanations, ...... 1. Comment on data of proof of this proposition, . . . . 2. Tenth Counter -proposition, ...... 3. The Leibnitzian restriction of counter-proposition, 4. Comment on the translation here given of tlie counter-proposition, 5. The counter -proposition is equally contradictory, whether accepted without, or with, a restriction, ...... 6. The counter-proposition is the foundation of “sensualism” — character of sensualism, ........ 7. The anti-sensual psychology merely restricts the counter-proposition — leaves the contradiction uncorrected, . . . . . 8. The root of the mischief. History of distinction between sense and intellect, ......... 9. Aim and procedure of Greek metaphysics, .... 10. A rule for the historian of philosophy, ..... 11. This rule observed in these Institutes, ..... 12. Return to history of distinction between sense and intellect, 13. Illustration of early Greek doctrine, ..... 257 257 258 258 259 259 260 261 261 263 264 264 266 266 267 269 CONTENTS. XIU ♦Page 14. The old philosophers were right in their problem — in their way of work¬ ing it, and in fixing sense as the faculty of nonsense, . . . 270 15. A reason why the truth of this doctrine is not obvious, . . . 271 16. Difficulty and difference of opinion as to intellectual element, . . 272 17. Ambiguities of the old philosopliers, ..... 273 18. Three misconceptions arising out of these ambiguities, . . . 273 19. Comment on first misconception, ...... 275 20. Comment on second misconception, ..... 276 21. Comment on third misconception, ...... 277 22. Key to the Greek philosophy, ...... 279 23. Return to counter-proposition. It is founded on a confusion of the dis¬ tinction between sense and intellect, ..... 281 24. The Lockian and the Kantian psychology in limiting the counter-propo¬ sition effect no subversion of sensualism, .... 282 25. Kant’s doctrine impotent against sensualism, .... 283 26. The statement in par. 4, and the charge in par. 7, are borne out by the foregoing remarks, ....... 286 27. Kant sometimes nearly right. He errs through a neglect of necessary truth, ......... 287 28. The true compromise between Sense and Intellect, . . . 288 PROPOSITION XI. Presentation and Representation, .... Demonstration, ........ Observations and Explanations, ..... 1. Why this proposition is introduced, .... 2. Distinction between knowing and thinking, 3. This proposition the foundation of a true philosophy of experience, 4. Representation — its two insuperable restrictions, . 5. First restriction by way of addition. Second by way of subtraction, 6. The latter restriction unrecognised by philosophers. Eleventh Counter proposition, ...... 7. Its invalidity shown, ..... 8. The minimum cogitahUe equates with the minimum scibile, 9. Dr Reid’s mistake in his assault on representationism, . 10. The truth and the error of representationism. PROPOSITION XII. Matter per se again, . . . . . . . 300 Demonstration, ......... 300 Observations and Explanations, ...... 300 1. Why this proposition is introduced, ..... 301 2. On what condition matter per se might be thought of, . . . 302 3. In attempting to think it, we must leave out an element essential to its cognition, and therefore it cannot be thought of, . , . 303 -- — 4. How the imagination leads us astray, ..... 303 5. Illustration, . . . . . ... . . 304 6. Self must be represented just as much as it must be presented, . . 305 7. Twelfth Counter -proposition, ...... 305 290 291 291 292 293 293 294 295 296 296 297 299 XIV CONTENTS. Page 8. Its character and downfall, ...... 306 9. Matter per se has no chance of being thought of, .... 306 10. It eannot be reached by the way of inference, .... 307 11. Why the discussion respectmg matter per se is important, . . 307 PROPOSITION XIH. The Independent Universe in Thought, ..... 310 Demonstration, ......... 310 Observations and Explanations, ...... 311 1. This proposition speaks only of what can be conceived, not of what exists, 311 2. It answers the question — what independent universe can be thought of ? 311 3. Why we do not think of things as amorphous when they are absent from us, ........ . 312 4. An objection stated, ....... 313 5. Objection obviated. We have a single type — can suppose it repeated, . 314 6. Why we cannot cogitate matter per se — no single type, . . . 315 7. We have a single type of objects + subject — can conceive other cases of this, . . ....... 315 8. Further explanation of how one self can conceive another self, . . 316 9. A word on Belief, ......... 318 10. Another difficulty obviated, ...... 318 11. Thirteenth Counter-proposition, ...... 320 PROPOSITION XIV. The Phenomenal in Cognition, ...... 321 Demonstration, ......... 321 Observations and Explanations, ...... 321 1. Fourteenth Counter -proposition, ...... 321 2. A good rule for reaching truth on metaphysical topics, . . . 322 3. The psychological trifling with truth ought to be put a stop to, . . 322 4. The main object of this and three following propositions, . . 323 PROPOSITION XV. What the Phenomenal in Cognition is, . . . . . 324 Demonstration, ......... 324 Observations and Explanations, ...... 325 1. A peculiarity in the counter-proposition, ..... 325 2. Fifteenth Counter-proposition, ...... 326 3. The counter-proposition involves a contradiction, . . . 326 PROPOSITION XVI. The Substantial in Cognition, ...... 328 Demonstration, ......... 328 Observations and Explanations, ...... 329 1. This proposition proves nothing as to mVfinpr substance, . . 329 2. Neither does it declare the nature of known substance, . . . 329 3. Reasons for introducing this proposition, ..... 330 CONTENTS. XV Page 4. The position of natural thinking in regard to this proposition, . . 331 5. Sixteenth Counter-proposition, ...... 332 6. Its downfall, ........ 333 7. Defence of definition of known substance, ..... 333 8. Tliis definition is due to Spinoza, ...... 334 PROPOSITION XVII. What the Substantiai, in Cognition is, . . . . . 33.5 Demonstration, ......... 335 Observations and Explanations, ...... 336 1. Seventeenth Counter-proposition, ...... 336 2. Conglomerate cliaracter of tlie counter-proposition, . . . 337 3. Elimination of its ontological surplusage, ..... 337 4. Its contradictory character exposed in so far as it is psychological, . 339 5. Tile counter-proposition considered in so far as it is the product of natu¬ ral thinking, ........ 340 6. Tile exact point in tlie counter-proposition wliicli natural thinking op¬ poses to the proposition, ....... 341 7. Contradiction in the counter-proposition, in so far as it is the product of natural thinking, ... .... 341 8. Psychological opinion as to existing substance, .... 342 9. First, It does not answer its purpose, ..... 342 10. Secondly, It places before us the mere phenomenal, . . . 343 11. The institutional conception of known substance, . . . 344 12. History of distinction between substance and phenomenon — its terms have been reversed, ....... 345 13. Errors caused by this reversal, ...... 346 14. Substance and phenomenon originally bore the signification assigned to them here, ........ 347 15. The known phenomenal according to the older systems, . . . 348 16. The known substantial according to the older systems, . . . 348 17. A word upon existing substance and phenomenon, . . . 349 18. Two main ambiguities in tbe old systems, ..... 350 19. These ambiguities accounted for, ...... 351 20. And cleared up by a reference to the Institutional doctrine, . . 352 21. Coincidence of the old speculations with the Institutes, . . . 353 22. An objection obviated, ....... 364 23. Mistakes of the historians of philosophy as to substance, . . . 355 24. A traditional dogma about disdaining the senses, . . . 356 25. The true meaning of turning the mind away from the senses, . . 357 26. What the ancient philosophers meant by this dogma, . . . 359 27. Contrast between speculation and psychology in their views of substance and phenomenon, ....... 360 28. Speculation proved to be right even by a reference to experience, . 361 PROPOSITION XVIII. The Relative in Cognition, ....... 363 Demonstration, ......... 363 Observations and E.xplanations, ...... 363 XVI CONTENTS. Page 1. The same error is continually reappearing under new forms — must be unmasked under all its disguises, ..... 364 2. Hence the necessity of Props. XVIII., XIX., XX., XXI., . . 365 3. Eighteenth Counter-proposition, ...... 366 4. It is shown to be contradictory, ...... 366 PROPOSITION XIX. What the Relative in Cognition is, .... . 367 Demonstration, ......... 367 Observations and Explanations, ...... 368 1. Why the items mentioned in the proposition can be known only as the relative, ......... 368 2. Nineteenth Counter-proposition, ...... 368 •3. Its faliacy shown, ........ 369 PROPOSITION XX. The Absolute in Cognition, ....... 370 Demonstration, ......... 370 Observations and Explanations, ...... 371 1. Nothing is affirmed as to the existing Absolute, .... 371 2. Comment on definition of tlie known Absolute, .... 371 3. Twentieth Counter-proposition, ...... 372 4. This counter-proposition is a reiteration of Counter-proposition XVI., . 372 PROPOSITION XXI. What the Absolute in Cognition is, .... . 373 Demonstration, ........ 373 Observations and Explanations, ...... 374 1. Comment on demonstration of Proposition XXI., . . . 374 2. Twenty-first Counter-proposition, ...... 374 3. Fruitlessness of the controversy respecting theJAbsolute and the Rela¬ tive. The philosophical temper, ..... 375 4. The causes of confusion in this controversy, .... 377 5. Ail men are equally cognisant of the absolute, .... 378 6. A reminder, . . ....... 379 7. Confusion might have been obviated had it been shown that all men are equally cognisant of the absolute, ..... 379 8. The difficulty is, not to know it, but to know that we know it, . . 380 9. Refutation of the relationist doctrine, ..... 380 10. Kant on the Absolute, ....... 381 11. The relation of non-contradictories and the relation of contradictories, . 383 PROPOSITION XXII. The Contingent Conditions op Knowledge, .... 384 Demonstration, . . . . . . . . . 384 Observations and Explanations, ...... 385 1. This proposition takes us out of necessary into contingent truth, . 385 CONTENTS. XVll Page 2. It is introduced in order that the necessary may be separated from the contingent laws, ........ 386 3. Why this analysis is indispensable, ..... 387 4. What is required in setting about this analysis, .... 388 6. The analysis illustrated, ....... 388 6. The analysis illustrated, ....... 390 7. It is unnecessary to carry the analysis into gi-eater detail, . . 391 8. How these remarks qualify the doctrine of the absolute given in Pro¬ position XXI., ........ 392 9. The absolute, however, is still object + subject. The main result of the epistemology, ... ..... 393 10. Twenty-second Counter-proposition, ..... 393 11. The chief point to be attended to in it, . . . . . 394 12. The cause of the errors of representationism pointed out, . . 394 13. The same subject continued, ...... 396 14. The cause of Berkeley’s errors pointed out, .... 397 15. The main result of the epistemology, . . . . . 399 16. The importance of this result, ...... 401 SECTION II. THE AGNOIOLOGT, OB THEORY OP IGNORANCE. PROPOSITION I. What Ignorance is, ....... . 405 Demonstration, ........ 405 Observations and Explanations, ...... 405 1. Why this proposition is introduced, ..... 405 2. Novelty of the agnoiology, ....... 406 3. The agnoiology is indispensable, ...... 406 4. The plea of our ignorance a bar to ontology, .... 407 5. This obstacle can be removed only by an inquiry into the nature of ignorance, ........ 408 6. First Counter-proposition, ....... 408 PROPOSITION II. Ignorance remediable, ....... 410 Demonstration, ......... 410 Observations and Explanations, ...... 410 1. All that this proposition proves, ...... 410 2. Second Counter-proposition, . ■ . . . . . 411 PROPOSITION HI. The Law op all Ignorance, ...... 412 Demonstration, ........ 412 Observations and Explanations, ...... 412 XVlll CONTENTS. Page 1. Importance of this proposition, .... • , 413 2. Symbols illustrative of the law of ignorance, . 413 3. Distinction between ignorance and a nescience of the opposites of neces¬ sary truth, ........ 414 4. There can be no ignorance of the opposites of the geometrical axioms, . 414 5. There can be no ignorance of the contradictory, . . 415 6. Third Counter-proposition, .... • 416 PROPOSITION IV. Ignorance of Objects per se, .... 417 Demonstration, ...... 417 Observations and Explanations, .... 417 1. The truths now pour down fast, .... 417 2. Fourth Counter-proposition — is swept away. 418 PROPOSITION V. Ignorance of Matter per se, .... 419 Demonstration, ....... 419 Observations and Explanations, .... 419 1. The main business of the agnoiology. 420 2. The disadvantage of not studying necessary truth. 420 3. The doctrine of ignorance entertained by psychology and common opinion. 421 4. The advantage of studying necessary truth. 421 5. The agnoiology carries out the work of the epistemology. 422 6. Fifth Counter-proposition, .... 423 7. Psychological conclusion as to our ignorance of matter per se. 423 8. It rests on a contradictory assumption. 424 9. The psychological conclusion, therefore, is contradictory. 425 10. The origin of the psychological mistake pointed out. 425 11. No ontology is possible if we can be ignorant of matter per se. 426 PROPOSITION VI. Ignorance of the Universal and Particular, . 428 Demonstration, ...... 428 Observations and Explanations, .... 428 1. Effect of this proposition, .... 429 2. Sixth Counter-proposition, .... 429 3. The error which it involves, .... 429 PROPOSITION VII. Ignorance of the Ego per se, .... 430 Demonstration, ...... 430 Observations and Explanations, .... 430 1. Design and effect of this proposition. 430 2. Seventh Counter-proposition, .... 431 3. What the agnoiology does next, .... 431 CONTENTS. XIX Page PROPOSITION VIII. The Object of all Ignorance, ...... 432 Demonstration, ........ 432 Observations and Explanations, ...... 433 1. Relation of this proposition to Proposition II. of the epistemology, . 433 2. The object of ignorance is neither nothing nor the contradictory, . 434 3. It is believed that this doctrine is new, . ... . . 435 4. What has caused this doctrine to be missed, .... 436 5. Another circumstance which has caused it to be missed, . . . 437 6. In fixing the object of ignorance this proposition does not deny its mag¬ nitude, ......... 438 7. How far the object of ignorance is definable, and how far it is not de¬ finable, ......... 439 8. The advantage of discriminating the necessary from the contingent laws of knowledge, ........ 440 9. This system is more humble in its pretensions than other systems, . 442 10. Eighth Counter-proposition, ...... 443 11. The grounds on which it rests are false, ..... 443 12. Illustration of the difference between the speculative and the ordinary view in regard to the object of ignorance, .... 444 13. The substantial and absolute in ignorance, .... 446 14. The main result of the agnoiology shortly stated, .... 446 15. Concluding remark, ....... 447 SECTION III. THE ONTOLOGY, OR THEORY OF BEING. PROPOSITION I. The Three Alternatives as to Absolute Existence, . . 453 Demonstration, ........ 453 Observations and Explanations, ...... 454 1. The problem of ontology stated, . . . • . . . 454 2. Its three alternatives are exhaustive, ..... 454 3. The third alternative has to be eliminated, .... 455 4. First Counter-proposition, ...... 456 5. In what respect this counter-proposition is right, .... 456 6. In what respect it is wrong, ...... 457 7. The law of excluded middle stated, ..... 457 8. How this law must be qualified, ...... 457 9. Origin of the mistake in regard to this law, .... 458 10. The want of a clear doctrine of the contradictory has been the cause of much error in philosophy, ...... 459 11. Distinction between the singly and the doubly contradictory, . , 460 XX CONTENTS. PROPOSITION II. A Premiss bv which the Third Alternative is eliminated, Demonstration, ....... Observations and Explanations, . . . . . 1. Why this proposition is introduced, . . . . 2. Second Counter -proposition, . ... . 3. To wliat extent it is true, ...... Page 461 461 462 462 462 462 PROPOSITION III. A Premiss by which the Third Alternative is eliminated, . 464 Demonstration, ........ 464 Observations and Explanations, ...... 464 1. The truth of this proposition is presupposed by the very nature of the inquiry, . ........ 465 2. Third Counter-proposition. Why there is none, . . . 466 PROPOSITION IV. Eliminates the Third Alternative, .... Demonstration, ....... Observations and Explanations, ..... 1. What this proposition effects, ..... 2. Fourth Counter-proposition. Why tliere is none, 3. The previous propositions are preliminary. Proposition V. is the start ing-point, ....... 467 467 467 467 468 468 PROPOSITION V. The remaining Alternatives, ...... 469 Demonstration, ...... . . 469 Observations and Explanations, ...... 469 1. This proposition secures tlie key of tlie ontology, .... 470 2. Fifth Counter-proposition. Wliy there is none, .... 471 PROPOSITION VI. What Absolute Existence is not, . Demonstration, Observations and Explanations, . 1. Sixth Counter-proposition, . 2. Is approved of by ordinary thinking, 3. In.what sense material things exist, PROPOSITION VII. What Absolute Existence is not, . Demonstration, Observations and Explanations, . 1. Seventh Counter-proposition, . 472 . 472 . 473 . 473 by psychology, . . .473 . 473 475 475 476 476 CONTENTS. XXI Page PROPOSITION VIII. What Absolute Existence is not, ..... 477 Demonstration, ......... 477 Observations and Explanations, ...... 477 1. Eighth Counter-proposition, ...... 478 2. Importance of the ego as a constituent of Absolute Existence, . . 478 3. Wily the reduction of the ego per se to a contradiction is important, . 478 PROPOSITION IX. The Origin of Knowledge, . . . . . . Demonstration, ......... Observations and Explanations, ...... 1. Question as to the origin of knowledge — has been erroneously treated, . 2. The assumption which vitiates the discussion, . . . . 3. First consequence of the assumption. Ninth Counter -proposition, 4. Second consequence. The doctrine of representationism, 5. The earliest form of representationism. Physical Influx, 6. Correction of this doctrine by Des Cartes, . . . . 7. Consequences of the Cartesian correction, . . . . 8. Scepticism and idealism arise, ...... 9. The Cartesian salvo — hypothesis of “ Occasional Causes.” Its insufR- ciency, ......... 10. Mallebranche : his “ Vision of all things in God,” 11. Leibnitz: his “ Pre-established Harmony, ” . . . . 12. Character of these hypotheses, ...... 13. Locke’s explanation, ....... 14. Berkeley : his doctrine of intuitive perception, . . . . 15. His fundamental defect, ....... 16. Reid : his misunderstanding of Berkeley, . . . . 17. Reid failed to establish a doctrine of intuitive perception, 18. His character as a philosopher, ...... 19. He mistook the vocation of philosophy, ..... 20. Kant. “ Innate Ideas,” . . . . ■. 21. Right interpretation of this doctrine, ..... 22. The circumstance to be particularly attended to in considering this doc¬ trine, ......... 23. The misconception to be particularly guarded against, . 24. This misconception has never been guarded against by any philosopher, 25. Hence the ineptitude of the controversy, ..... 26. In this controversy Kant is as much at fault as his predecessors, 27. How this system of Institutes avoids these errors, 28. First : it starts from no hypothesis, ..... 29. Secondly : it finds that all cognition consists of two elements, . 30. Thirdly : it finds that each element is no cognition, but only a half or part-cognition, ... • . . . . 31. Fourthly : it finds that matter is only a half cognition, . 32. Fifthly: it establishes “intuitive,” and overthrows “representative” perception, ........ 33. Sixthly ; it steers clear of materialism, ..... 479 479 479 480 480 481 481 482 483 484 484 486 487 488 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 496 497 497 499 499 500 500 502 504 504 505 505 606 506 506 xxu CONTENTS. Page 34. Seventhly: it steers clear of spurious idealism, .... 507 35. Eighthly: it is under no obligation to explain the origin of knowledge, because knowledge itself is the Beginning, .... 509 36. The synthesis of ego and non-ego is original, and not factitious or secondary, .... .... 510 PROPOSITION X. What Absolute Existence is, ..... . 511 Demonstration, ......... 511 Observations and Explanations, ...... 512 1. This proposition solves the problem of ontology, .... 512 2. It answers the question : What is Truth ? .... 513 3. All Existence is the synthesis of the universal and the particular, . 514 4. Thus the equation of the Known and the Existent has been proved, . 515 5. The coincidence of the Absolute in Existence with the Absolute in Cog¬ nition has also been proved, ...... 516 6. Attention called to restriction in foregoing paragraph, . . . 517 7. Illustration of restriction — What the ontology gives out as alone Abso¬ lute Existence, ........ 517 8. This paragraph qualides a previous assertion, .... 518 9. In what sense we know, and in what sense we are ignorant of. Absolute Existence, ........ 519 10. Tenth Counter -proposition, . . . . . . 521 PROPOSITION XI. What Absolute Existence is Necessary, .... 522 Demonstration, ......... 522 Observations and Explanations, ...... 523 1. Distinction taken in this proposition. Ontological proof of Deity, . 523 2. The system is forced to this conclusion, ..... 525 3. Eleventh Counter-proposition, ...... 525 Summary and Conclusion, ....... 526 1. The main question is — How has the system redeemed its pledges? . 526 2. It is submitted that the system is both reasoned and true, . . 527 3. The chief consideration to be looked to in estimating the system, . 527 4. Its negative character is to be attended to principally, . . . 528 5. The first step which the system takes in its negative or polemical character, 528 6. The next step which the system takes in its negative or polemical character, 529 7. The capital contradiction which the epistemology brings to light and corrects, . ........ 529 8. The second contradiction which it corrects, .... 530 9. The third contradiction which it corrects, .... 531 10. The fourth and fifth contradictions which it corrects, . . . 531 11. The propositions and counter-propositions fall into groups, . . 531 12. The sixth contradiction which the epistemology corrects, . . 532 13. The seventh contradiction which it corrects, .... 533 14. The eighth contradiction which it corrects, .... 533 15. The ninth contradiction which it corrects, .... 534 CONTENTS. XXlll Page Ifi. The tenth contradiction whicli it corrects, .... 534 17. The eleventh, twelfth, and thirteenth contradictions which it corrects, 535 18. The remaining contradictions which it corrects, .... 535 19. The leading contradiction which the agnoiology corrects, . . 536 20. Tile derivative contradictions which it corrects, .... 537 21. Tile concluding contradiction which it corrects, .... 537 22. The opinions entertained by natural thinking, and to some extent by psychology, on the subject of “ Being,” .... 538 23. How the ontology goes to work in exposing the contradictions involved in these opinions, ....... 538 24. Exposure and refutation of these contradictions, . . . 539 25. The ninth contradiction which the ontology corrects, . . . 539 26. The tenth contradiction which the ontology corrects, . . . 540 27. The eleventh contradiction which the ontology corrects, . . 540 28. By the correction of these contradictions, the system has redeemed its pledge, ......... 541 29. The utility of philosophical study, ..... 541 30. As a discipline of necessary and demonstrated truth, . . . 542 r; :Z .Vifl i' . t ■• * ^i' f t */ ' » • r ^ . I ^ 1 .-.I ■'* ' '*•' " ^ •' ■’ '•••’ ■“‘i u.'^ .■-.*. v» • '.t.vi . J M t ,»i ' i' tl rtn- ■♦» • 1 I .r .' n -ir:' .i . ..... *• 'u: ■ ■ ■ • 1 ‘li; . .• -ifj ',•* - .' . 1... f . 1 r ’t** tl x.^n' ■ ;-fH*-?. ■ ,rr ^ i . . , , - rh^' ' ■\ j*#v ■ • i.> H ' 9 •^~ \ ' ' ’ * \ ' : .J^fl- ' ■ -.1^-7, , V. ;i • .". - . i ,r#i' ^ a. . •.* • ir V •; - f,.- ^ ''.•V ’ //: r /t • rf »•. ^ f .f*>- % } ■' •' 'v ; « ; . V , ' ' • . i »• < K-r, ■*v?f f.\* - ■ - .■AA-'A' tv ■■'"ij,. ■'%v. ,^-‘ Vi. V&, 3- . . -iA, ■. i >f. ■ N. :v-i m‘' ■♦ > . ■ » «V ;,“ INSTITUTES OF METAPHYSIC. INTRODUCTION. § 1. Throughout the following work the word “Philosophy,” when used by itself, is to be taken as The word _ , , “ rhiloso- synonymons with speculative science, or “ metaphy- as here sics,” as they are usually termed. What philosophy or metaphysic is, will unfold itself, it is to be hoped, in the sequel. At the outset, it is merely necessary to state that, as employed in these pages, the term does not include either natural philosophy or ma¬ thematical science, but excludes them expressly from its signification. § 2. A system of philosophy is hound by two main requisitions, — it ought to be true, and it ought xhetwomain to he reasoned. If a system of philosophy is not of^piuioso- true, it will scarcely be convincing ; and if it is not reasoned, a man will be as little satisfied with it as a hungry person would be by having his meat A 2 INSTITUTES OF METAPHYSIC. Which of them is the more strin¬ gent. The value of systems de¬ termined by a reference to these re¬ quisitions. served up to him raw. Truth is the ultimate end of philosophy : hence a system of philosophy ought to be true. The formation of reason (as effected by the discharge of its proper function, which is the ascertainment and concatenation of necessary principles and conclusions) is the proximate end of philosophy ; hence a system of philosophy ought to be reasoned. Philosophy, therefore, in its ideal perfection, is a body of reasoned truth. § 8. Of these obligations, the latter is the more stringent : it is more proper that philosophy should be reasoned, than that it should be true ; because, while truth may perhaps be unattainable by man, to reason is certainly his province, and within his power. In a case where two objects have to be overtaken, it is more incumbent on us to secure the one to which our faculties are certainly competent, than the other, to which they are perhaps inade¬ quate. Besides, no end can be so important for man as the cultivation of his own reason. § 4. This consideration determines the value of a system of philosophy. A system is of the highest value only when it embraces both of these requisi¬ tions — that is, when it is both true and reasoned. But a system which is reasoned without being true, is always of higher value than a system which is true without being reasoned. INTEODUCTION. 3 § 5. The latter kind of system is of no value ; be¬ cause philosophy is “the attainment of truth by the Anunrea- J. •/ ^ ^ ^ ^ soned system ivav of reason.” That is its definition. A system of“ovaiu®, therefore, which reaches the truth, but not by the way of reason, is not philosophy at all ; it has no scientific worth. No man can be called upon to take truth upon trust at the hands of his brother man. But truth not reasoned is truth proposed upon trust. The best that could be said of such a system would be, that it was better than one which was neither true nor reasoned. § 6. Again, — an unreasoned philosophy, even though true, carries no guarantee of its truth. It Because, may be true, but it cannot be certain ; because all certainty depends on rigorous evidence — on strict demonstrative proof. Therefore no certainty can attach to the conclusions of an unreasoned philo¬ sophy. § 7. Further, — the truths of science, in so far as science is a means of intellectual culture, are of no Because of . _ _ no use as a importance in themselves, or considered apart from mental dis- ^ cipiine. each other. It is only the study and apprehension of their vital and organic connection which is valu¬ able in an educational point of view. But an unreasoned body of philosophy, however true and formal it may be, has no living and essential inter¬ dependency of parts on parts ; and is, therefore, 4 INSTITUTES OP METAPHYSIC. A reasoned system, though not true, has some value as an exer¬ cise of reason, It complies more closely with defini¬ tion of phi¬ losophy than the other. useless as a discipline of the mind, and valueless for purposes of tuition. § 8. On the other hand, a system which is rea¬ soned, hut not true, has always some value. It creates reason by exercising it. It is employing the proper means to reach truth, although it may fail to reach it. Even though its parts may not be true, yet if each of them be a step leading to the final catastrophe — a link in an unbroken chain on which the ultimate disclosure hinges — and if each of the parts be introduced merely because it is such a step or link, — in that case it is conceived that the system is not without its use, as affording an invi¬ gorating employment to the reasoning powers, and that general satisfaction to the mind which the successful extrication of a plot, whether in science or in romance, never fails to communicate. § 9. Such a system, although it falls short of the definition of philosophy just given, comes nearer to it than the other; because to reach truth, but not by the way of reason, is to violate the definition in its very essence ; whereas to miss truth, but by the way of reason, is to comply with the funda¬ mental circumstance which it prescribes. If there are other ways of reaching truth than the road of reason, a system which enters on any of these other paths, whatever else it may be, is not a INTEODUCTION. 5 system of philosophy in the proper sense of the word. § 10. But, as has been said, a system of philosophy ouffht to be both true in all its positions, and also But a system ° ’ should be thoroughly reasoned out in a series of strict demon- strations, which, while each is complete and impreg- nable in itself, shall present, in their combination, only one large demonstration from the beginning to the end of the work. This, indeed, is the only kind of system to which much value can be as¬ signed, or from which any large intellectual profit can be expected. Philosophical books may be read ; philosophical lectures may be listened to ; but no¬ thing except a strictly-reasoned system can be either taught or learned. § 11. Without offering any opinion as to how far the systems of philosophers may be true, we may Systems of philosophy affirm with certainty of the whole of them, that ^re unrea. they are not reasoned — meaning by “ reasoned,” an unbroken chain of clear demonstration carried through from their first word to their last. To what¬ ever extent preceding inquirers may have fulfilled one of the requirements of philosophy, they have neglected the more essential and obligatory of the two. And the consequence makes itself heard in a murmur, over the whole world, of deep dissatis¬ faction, to which the words of the following para- 6 INSTITUTES OF METAPHYSIC. The present state of phi¬ losophy de¬ scribed. graph may give a faithful, though perhaps feeble, expressioD. § 12. It is a matter of general complaint that, although we have plenty of disputations and disser- » tations on philosophy, we have no philosophy itself. This is perfectly true. People write about it, and about it; but no one has grasped with an unflinching hand the very thing itself. The whole philosophical literature of the world is more like an unwieldy com¬ mentary on some text which has perished, or rather has never existed, than like what a philosophy itself should be. Our philosophical treatises are no more philosophy than Eustathius is Homer, or than Malone is Shakespeare. They are mere partial and desultory annotations on some text, on which, unfortunately, no man can lay his hands, because it nowhere exists. Hence the embroilment of speculation ; hence the dissatisfaction, even the despair, of every inquiring mind which turns its attention to meta¬ physics. There is not now in existence even the shadow of a tribunal to which any point in litiga¬ tion can be referred. There is not now in exist¬ ence a single book which lays down with precision and impartiality the Institutes of all metaphysical opinion, and shows the seeds of all speculative controversies. Hence philosophy is not only a war, but it is a war in which none of the combatants understands the grounds either of his own opinion INTKODUCTION. 7 or of that of his adversaiV ; or sees the roots of the side of the question which he is either attacking or defending. The springs by which these disputatious puppets are worked, lie deep out of their own sight. Every doctrine which is either embraced or re¬ jected, is embraced or rejected blindly, and without any insight into its merits ; * and every blow which is struck, whether for truth or error, is struck igno¬ rantly, and at hap-hazard. §13. This description is no exaggeration ; it falls short of the truth. It will readily be believed, not How is this state perhaps by philosophers themselves, but by all who, without being philosophers, have endeavoured to obtain some acquaintance with the views of those coy custodiers of the truth. But the fact being certain that the condition of philosophy is such as has been described, or worse, the question is, first, How is this state of matters to be accounted for ? and, secondly, How is it to be remedied ? § 14. First, It is to be accounted for generally by that neglect of the chief requisition of philosophy which has been already pointed out — by the circum- For example, the doctrine of “ idealism and materialism,” treated of under Prop. IV. (Epistem.) ; the doctrine of "the uni¬ versal and the particular,” treated of under Prop. VI. (Epistem.); the doctrine of “ materiality and spirituality,” treated of under Prop. VIII. (Epistem.) ; the doctrine of " innate ideas,” treated of under Prop. IX. (Ontology). 8 INSTITUTES OF METAPHYSIC. First, it is explained (§§14-31) by philosophy not being reasoned. No good can be expected so long as philosophy is not rea¬ soned. stance, namely, that philosophy is not reasoned. What is meant by “ reasoned ” can scarcely he well explained except by the thing itself being done. The body of this work, therefore, is referred to for a practical and detailed exemplification of the term. Any general observations would probably teach the reader nothing but what he already knows, and. would only retard, without enlightening his pro¬ gress. Strict reasoning, like everything else, is best explained, not by being explained, but by being done. The unsatisfactory state, then, of philosophy is to be accounted for generally by the circumstance that philosophy is not reasoned. § 15. So long as philosophy is not strictly reasoned out from the very beginning, no cessation of con¬ troversy can be expected ; and not only can no armistice be expected — nothing but misunderstand¬ ings can prevail. All the captains are sailing on different tacks, under different orders, and under different winds ; and each is railing at the others, because they will not keep the same course with himself More than that, — there is not a single con¬ troversy in philosophy in which the antagonists are playing at the same game. The one man is play¬ ing at chess, his advei^ary is playing against him at billiards ; and whenever a victory is achieved, or a defeat sustained, it is always such a victory as a bil¬ liard-player might be supposed to gain over a chess- INTRODUCTION. 9 player, or such a defeat as a billiard-player might be supposed to sustain at the hands of a chess-player. These incongruous contests are entirely attributable to the circumstance that philosophy has not been reasoned out from the bottom, and that the dispu¬ tants have no common question before them on which they have joined issue. § 16. As time has advanced, it has constantly sped worse with philosophy, instead of speeding better. The masks , of pUiloso- This could not be otherwise : to carry forward a piiy- pure science, the first principles of which are not thoroughly ascertained, and to carry it forward by other means than that of strict demonstration, is only to add layer after layer to the winding-clothes which already cover up the truth ; it is only to add another coating to the infinite litterings of the Augean stable, whose pavement no son of Adam can get down to. Every question in philosophy is the mask of another question ; and all these mask¬ ing and masked questions require to be removed and laid aside, until the ultimate but truly first question has been reached. Then, but not till then, is it possible to decipher and resolve the outside mask, and all those below it, which come before us in the first instance. Instead, however, of removing these successive masks, each succeeding inquirer undertakes to unriddle the outermost one off-hand ; and the consequence is, that, so far from resolving 10 INSTITUTES OF METAPHYSIC. it, he puts over it a new coating of paint, and thus leaves the original masks covered over with an addi¬ tional stratum of concealing visors, by which the first difficulty of attaining to the truth is very con¬ siderably augmented. So that now no question comes before the world which does not present many disguises, both natural and artificial, worn one above another ; and these false-faces are con¬ tinually increasing. Does matter exist or not ? People actually think that that is, or ever was, a question in philosophy. It is only the outer-case masking a multiplicity of masks, which would all require to be removed before even a glimpse of the true question can be obtained. Another phantom is a mask, or rather a whole toy-shop of masks, which philosophers have been pleased to call the “ Absolute ; ” but what they exactly mean hy this name — what it is that is under these trappings, — neither those who run down the incognito^ nor those who speak it fair, have ever condescended to inform us. Indeed, it may be affirmed with cer¬ tainty that no man, for at least two thousand years, has seen the true fiesh-and-blood countenance of a single philosophical problem. § 17. But how is that to be accounted for ? It is to be accounted for by the circumstance, that men have supposed that in philosophy they could advance by going forwards ; whereas the truth is, that they INTRODUCTION. 11 can advance only by going, in a manner, backwards. We have tried to get to the end, without having first its unsatis¬ factory state got to the beqinninq. Philosophers aimed at the further ac- ® ^ o r counted for. solution of problems, before they had got in hand ^ecuiatlon”^ the elements of their solution. The true state of the case is this : The world of speculation, like the phy¬ sical globe, is rounded to a sphere, but a sphere of more gigantic compass and more difficult circum¬ navigation than any which the whole natural uni¬ verse can show. The primitive articles of all thought, the seminal principles of all reason, the necessary constituents of all knowledge, the keys of all truth, lie, at first, buried under our very feet ; but, as yet, we are not privileged to find them. We must first circumnavigate the globe ; the whole world of speculation must be traversed by our weary feet. Hence every step forward carries us only farther and farther from the mark. Ere long the elements of truth — all that we are indistinctly look¬ ing for — lie in the far-distant rear, while we vainly think that we behold them glimmering on the hori¬ zon in our front. We have left them behind us, though we know it not — like decaying camp-fires, like deserted household gods. We still keep mov¬ ing onwards in a direction which is, at once, wrong and right — wrong, because every step leads us far¬ ther and farther from the truth ; right, because it is our doom. Every new halt increases our confu¬ sion, our consternation, and our dismay. Our hearts 12 INSTITUTES OF METAPHYSIC. Explanation continued. First prin¬ ciples always come out last. may sink within us when we cross the line on the shoreless sea of speculation. At the antipodes the clouds of doubt may settle dark upon our path, and the tempests of despair may cause our fortitude to quail ; but, vestigia nulla retrorsum, there is no drawing back for us now. We are embarked on an irrevocable mission ; let us press forward then — let us carry through. The intellectual, like the physical world, is a round ; and at the moment when the wanderer imagines himself farthest from the house of Humanity, he will find himself at home. He has revolved to the spot of his nativity. He is again surrounded by the old familiar things. But familiarity has been converted into insight ; the toils of speculation have made him strong ; and the results of speculation have made him wise. He is now privileged to dig up the keys of truth, and to see, and to show to others, the very seeds of reason. He now beholds the great universe of God in the light of a second illumination, which is far purer and far less troubled than the first. Philosophy and common sense are reconciled. § 18. The unreasoned and generally unsatisfactory state of philosophy is to be explained by the circum¬ stance, that no inquirer has ever yet got to the beginning ; and this, again, is to be accounted for by a fact for which no man is answerable, but which is inherent in the very constitution of things — the INTEODUCTION, 13 circumstance, namely, that things which are first in the order of nature are last in the order of know¬ ledge. This consideration, while it frees all human beings from any degree of blame, serves to explain why the rudiments of philosophy should still be to seek, and why speculation should have exhibited so many elaborate, although unreasoned and un¬ grounded, productions, while its very alphabet was in arrear. This view may be the better of some illustration. § 19. First principles of every kind have their in¬ fluence, and indeed operate largely and powerfully, long before they come to the surface of human thought and are articulately expounded. This is more particularly exemplified in the case of lan¬ guage. The principles of grammar lie at the root of all languages, and preside over their formation. But these principles do their work in the dark. No man’s intellect traces their secret operation, while the language is being moulded by their control. Yet the mind of every man, who uses the language with propriety and effect, is imbued with these principles, although he has no knowledge of their existence. Their practice and their influence are felt long be¬ fore their presence and their existence are perceived. The operative agencies of language are hidden ; its growth is imperceptible. Illustrations of this from language and grammar. “ Crescit occulto, velut arbor, sevo.” 14 INSTITUTES OP METAPHYSIC. Illustration continued. Like a tree, unobserved through the solitudes of a thousand years, up grows the mighty stem, and the mighty branches of a magnificent speech. No man saw the seed planted — no eye noticed the infant sprouts — no mortal hand watered the nursling of the grove — no register was kept of the gradual widen¬ ing of its girth, or of the growing circumference of its shade — till, the deciduous dialects of surrounding barbarians dying out, the unexpected bole stands forth in all its magnitude, carrying aloft in its foliage the poetry, the history, and the philosophy of a heroic people, and dropping for ever over the whole civilised world the fruits of Grecian literature and art. § 20. It is always very late in the day before the seminal principles of speech are detected and ex¬ plained. Indeed, the language which owed to them both birth and growth may have ceased to be a living tongue before these, the regulating elements of its formation, come to light, and are embodied in written grammars. That most elementary species of instruction which we familiarly term the A, B, C, had no express or articulate existence in the minds, or on the lips, of men, until thousands of years after the invention and employment of language ; yet these, the vital constituents of all speech, were there from the beginning. INTEODUCTION. 15 § 21. Logic is another instance. Men reasoned, generation after generation, long before they knew illustration from logic. a single dialectical rule, or had any notion of the construction of the syllogism. The principles of logic were operative in every ratiocination, yet the reasoner was incognisant of their influence until Aristotle anatomised the process, and gave out the law of thought in its more obvious and ordinary workings. Whether Aristotle’s rudiments of logic have not an antecedent rudiments — which time may yet bring to light — is a somewhat unsettled pro¬ blem in speculation. § 22. The same analogy may be observed, to a large extent, in the formation of our civil laws, illustration . , . from law. The laws which hold society together, operate with the force of instincts, and after the manner of vague traditions, long before they are digested into writ¬ ten tables. The written code does not create the law ; it merely gives a distinct promulgation, and a higher degree of authority, to certain floating principles which had operated on people’s practice antecedently. Laws, in short, exist, and bind ■ society, long before they exist as established, or even as known laws. They have an occult and implied influence, before they obtain a manifest and systematic form. They come early in the order of nature, but late in the order of knowledge ; early • IG INSTITUTES OF METAPHYSIC. Application to philoso- pliy. Here, too, first principles , come out last. in the order of action, but late in the order of thinking ; early in the order of practice, but late in the order of theory. § 23. So in regard to philosophy. Its principles, like all other principles — like the elements of every science and of every art — though first in the order of nature, are last in the order of intelligence ; only there is this difference between philosophy and all other creations, that its principles, being the earliest birth of time, are therefore among the very last that shall be completely extricated from the masses in which they lie imbedded. They force man’s gene¬ ral powers forward into the light ; for themselves, they shrink back, and keep aloof from observation. The invariable rule seems to be, that what is ear¬ liest in the progress of existence is latest in the progress of discovery — a consideration which might lead us to suppose that all science can advance only by going, in a manner, backwards, or rather by coming round ; that the infinite future can alone comprehend or interpret the secrets of the infinite past ; and that the apotheosis and final triumph of human reason will be, when, after having traversed the whole cycle of thought, she returns — enriched only with a deeper insight and a clearer conscious¬ ness — to be merged in the glorious innocence of her primitive and inspired incunabula. INTKODUCTION. 17 § 24. These considerations may serve to explain, to some extent at least, how it happens that the Tliese prin¬ ciples, venerable science of metaphysics should, even thus f'oug’! or?; late in the day, be without any articulate exposition of its most elementary principles. The very circum- stance that these principles are elementary, both necessitates and explains the lateness of their ap- ' pearance. But although no such institutional work exists, we are not to suppose that these principles have been powerless, inert, or non-existent ; on the contrary, they have been living seeds which have germinated in luxuriant produce in the minds of all great thinkers, from Pythagoras downwards. But * it is certain that these elements, though never dor¬ mant, have worked for the most part in secresy and in silence. They nestle away out of sight with won- . derful pertinacity ; hence nobody knows what they are, and nobody can be told what they are, except by their being shown to him, not in a book about philosophy, but in a reasoned work which is itself philosophy. All preliminary explanations of philo¬ sophy and its principles must be more or less insuflfi- cient. Farther on, however, in this introduction, the more important initial points of philosophy shall be discussed and adjusted. Meanwhile it may be said, in a very few words, that by the principles, the elements, the rudiments of our science, are meant in particular, its one and sole starting-point, B 18 INSTITUTES OF METAPHYSIC. Hence phi¬ losophy is ' nowhere a scheme reasoned throughout. its end or object, its business in this world, what it has to do, why it has to do it, and how it does it. These matters, though early in the order of nature, have been late in the order of science. They are the preliminary steps of metaphysic, yet the world has been very slow in finding them out. They are the antediluvian germs, the pre-formations of philo¬ sophy, yet they have never been distinctly brought to light. There cannot be a doubt that the mind of Plato was imbued with a profound sense of the object or business of speculative science, that he had a dim intuition of the necessary principles of all reason, and of all existence. But these objects wavered before his view ; they refused to form themselves into shape. They rather overshadowed him from behind, with the awe of a brooding and mysterious presence, than rose up in front of him, like a beautiful countenance, whose lineaments were decipherable and clear. § 25. Hence philosophy is nowhere a body of in¬ tellectual light, a scheme of demonstrated truth, from the beginning to the end. It could not be such, unless philosophy had possessed a distinct percep¬ tion of what she had to do, and a steady compre¬ hension of the means of doing it. But philosophy could not possess this insight so long as she lived passive and unconscious under the presidency of her own principles, instead of getting the upper hand of INTKODUCTION. 19 them, and thus obtaining an intelligent survey of their whole scope and operation. It was not enough that the elementary truths, the instigating motives of speculative inquiry, should have secretly influenced the formation of philosophy. It was necessary that the secret influence of these truths and motives should be no longer secret but manifest, before phi¬ losophy could go forth fully instructed in the causes of her own being — fully cognisant of the purpose for which she had come into the world, and com¬ pletely armed with the weapons of universal intel¬ lectual conquest. But this consummation was not possible, until a comparatively late period in the career of speculation ; for that which is first in time is last in science. Hence philosophy has con¬ tinued to be a body of opinions not reasoned out from the beginning — of opinions which, even when they seem most obvious and most true, are not entitled to the name of intelligible ; because, in strict science, nothing, properly speaking, is intelli¬ gible unless it is supported by rigorous demonstra¬ tion, or is a necessary intuition of reason. § 26. It is further to be observed, in explanation of the deficiencies of philosophy, as shown in its un¬ reasoned character, that from an early period there has been a powerful tendency at work, counteract¬ ing the proper efforts of speculative thought. This tendency displays itself in the determination, strongly The repudia tion of neces sary truths, a further retarding cause. 20 INSTITUTES OF METAPHYSIC. manifested in certain quarters of late years, but cer¬ tainly far from being triumphant, to limit the strictly necessary truths of reason to the smallest possible amount — to confine them to the pure mathematics, if not to explode them even here. This is an inte¬ resting question ; but, like all others, it can be effec¬ tually settled, not by general observations, but only by the production of the subjects in dispute — that is, the necessary truths themselves. These will appear in their proper places. Meanwhile all enlarged argument in their defence, and all detailed explan¬ ation of their character, must be avoided, as our purpose at present merely is, to point out the retarding causes of speculation, of which the dis¬ countenance thrown on the necessary truths of rea¬ son has been undoubtedly one, and one of the most influential. § 27. A few observations, however, may here be whatneces- offered, in elucidation of what is meant by necessary sary truth is. ‘ truth. A necessary truth or law of reason is a truth or law the opposite of which is inconceivable, con¬ tradictory, nonsensical, impossible; more shortly, it is a truth, in the fixing of which nature had only , one alternative, be it positive or negative. Na¬ ture might have fixed that the sun should go round the earth, instead of the earth round the sun ; at least we see nothing in that supposition which is contradictory and absurd. Either alternative was INTEODUCTION. 21 equally possible. But nature could not have fixed that two straight lines should, in any circum¬ stances, enclose a space ; for this involves a con¬ tradiction. § 28. The logical “ law of identity or contradic¬ tion,” as it is called, is the general expression and its criterion is the ‘ ‘ law criterion of all necessary truth. This law may be best exhibited by carrying it a point higher than is explained, usually done. The law is, that a thing must be what it is. A is A. Suppose that the denier of all necessary truth, and consequently of this propo¬ sition, were to say — “ No ; a thing need not be what it is ; ” the rejoinder is — “ Then your proposition, that a thing need not be what it is, need not be what it is. It may be a statement to directly the opposite effect. Which of the statements, then, is it ? Is it a proposition which affirms that a thing need not be what it is, or a proposition declaratory of the very contrary ? ” “ It is a proposition to the former effect,” says he. “ But how can I know that ? If a thing need not be what it is, why need your proposition (which, of course, is something) be what it is ? Why may it not be a declaration that a thing is and must be what it is ? Give me some guarantee that it is not the latter proposition, or I cannot possibly take it up. I cannot know what it means, for it may have two meanings.” The man is speechless. He cannot give me any guarantee. 22 INSTITUTES OF METAPHYSIC. He must take for granted that his proposition, when he proposes it, is and must be what it is. This is all we want. The law of contradiction thus vindi¬ cates itself. It cannot be denied without being assented to, for the person who denies it must assume that he is denying it ; in other words, he must assume that he is saying what he is saying, and he must admit that the contrary supposition — to wit, that he is saying what he is not saying — involves a contradiction. Thus the law is established. It proves the existence of, at any rate, one necessary truth or law of reason ; and if there can be one, why can there not be many ? Indeed, the law of contradiction is not so much one special necessary truth, as the generalisation or general form, and exponent of all ideas (and their name is legion) whose opposites involve a mental contradiction. The reader need scarcely be informed that the law of contradiction has no worth or merit of its own. Looked at in itself, it is trivial beyond triviality. It is merely convenient, as an abbreviated expres¬ sion for the criterion of all necessary truth, the test being — do their opposites involve a mental contra¬ diction ? — are their opposites at variance with the law which declares that A is A ? If they are — if they are equivalent to a denial that a thing is what it is — then the truths in question are necessary ; if they do not involve this contradiction, the truths in question are contingent. INTEODUCTION. 23 § 29. A short but important observation may here be made, that ready acceptance, instantaneous Its criterion . . , . . „ 1 ready acquiescence, is not the criterion of necessary truth, acceptance, although it is very generally regarded as such. Our whole natural thinking, as shall be distinctly proved in the body of this work, consists of a series of judgments, each of which involves a mental contra¬ diction, — in other words, controverts a necessary truth or law of reason. But certainly it is not to be expected either that these judgments should be seen to present contradictions the moment they are uttered, or that the ideas of reason by which they are supplanted should be instantaneously acquiesced in as necessary. All important necessary truths re¬ quire a much longer time, and a much more sedu¬ lous contemplation, to obtain the assent of human intelligence than do the contingent ones. § 30. From this explanation we return to the subject more immediately in hand, the retarding Return, causes of philosophy. The unfounded assumption with ueces- ^ sary truths — that the class of necessary truths, or laws of reason, bV^’ is either null or of very limited extent, — and the scriptiou’.* effrontery with which their investigation has been proscribed as an illegitimate pursuit, — have contri¬ buted more directly than any other cause to arrest the improvement of speculation, and to render it a vague and unreasoned science : for philosophy exe¬ cutes her proper functions only when dealing with 24 INSTITUTES OF METAPHYSIC. necessary truth. This cause, however, is merely an exemplification of the more comprehensive cause already pointed out ; for the necessary truths of rea¬ son, — being the most primitive elements of philo- ' sophy, and the first in the order of things, — are fixed by that very circumstance, as the most obsti¬ nate in concealing themselves from view, and as among the latest that shall be brought to light. They have had to contend, however, with an addi¬ tional impediment which it was proper to notice, — a determined resolution to keep them down. But ultimately they will blaze out as lucent as the stars ; and, like the stars, it will perhaps be found that they are numberless. § 31. This brief explanation of the backward and How ill the ill-conditioned and unmanageable state of philo- necessary fared\n Ger generally, may be concluded by the remark oiu'"own"'^ that, both in Germany and in our own country, the ^oiintry. necessary truths of reason, even when, in a certain sense, and to a certain extent, admitted, have fared as badly as they possibly could. The criterion of contradiction has been made to apply only to some of - them, while another class which could not bear this test were also set down as necessary truths. As if they ought not to have been placed under the contingent category ! The criterion of contradic¬ tion must be brought rigorously to bear on every ‘ necessary truth, otherwise it is unworthy of the INTRODUCTION. 25 name. This misapplication, or lax employment of the criterion, was Kant’s doing ; and frightful con¬ fusion has been the result. In our own country Kant’s example has been followed, and to some extent preceded. The necessary truths of reason, when touched upon by our philosophers, have been so uncritically sifted ; they have been so mixed up and confounded with the truths of mere contin¬ gency, — the two classes being, to a large extent, absolutely placed on a par in point of authority, whereby the distinction between them is rendered void and of no effect, — that the prospects of our philosophy, and the interests of speculative thought, would have been fully more promising had the ne¬ cessary truths not been meddled with at all.* * In confirmation of what is said in this paragraph, the reader is referred to the very perplexed and erroneous distinction laid down by Kant, between what he calls analytic and synthetic judganents. — See Kritih der reinen Vernunft ; Einleitung, §§ iv. v. There is, according to Kant, a class of judgments or propositions in which the predicate merely exijresses some conception already in¬ volved in the conception of the subject. “ All bodies are extended,” is an example of this class of propositions. Here the conception of extension is already contained in the conception of body ; and hence the proposition adds nothing to our knowledge : it is merely explica¬ tive, or resolvent ; or, in the language of Kant, it is an analytic judg¬ ment. All propositions of this kind express a priori or necessary truths ; and their criterion is the law of contradiction ; for it is obvi¬ ous that to say, “ All bodies are not extended” — when we have once involved extension in the conception of body — is equivalent to saying bodies are not bodies. There is another class of judgments to which Kant gives the name of synthetic. In synthetic propositions the predicate is said to ex¬ press, and very often does express, some conception which is not already involved in the conception of the subject. They add to our knowledge ; hence they have been sometimes called amphative judg- 26 INSTITUTES OF METAPHYSIC. Secondly, Jiow is tlie unsatisfac¬ tory state of piiilosopliy to be remedied ? Sljort an¬ swer. § 32. Secondly^ How is the present unsatisfactory condition of philosophy to he remedied The short answer is, that it can be remedied only by a diligent attempt to digest a body of philosophical institutes which shall be both true and reasoned, in the strictest and most thorough-going sense of the word reasoned. No indulgence on the score of well-meant intentions; no excuse on the ground of the incompetency of human reason (for this incompetency is always mere laziness aping the virtue of humility) ; no allowance on the plea of the difficulty of the undertaking, should be either asked or given. The thing must either be done thoroughly or not at all. Such a work must ments. These synthetic or ampliative judgments are, according to Kant, of two kinds ; they are either a posteriori (contingent, the pro¬ duct of experience), or they are a priori (necessary, the ground or condition of experience). “ Gold is fusible,” is an instance of syn¬ thetic judgment a posteriori; for the conception of gold does not necessarily involve the conception of fusibility. Gold might not have been fusible. Its fusibility is learned only from experience, and is a new conception added to the conception of gold. Up to this point there is no difficulty in understanding the distinc¬ tion. It is when he comes to speak of the synthetic judgments a pri¬ ori, that Kant becomes erroneous and confused. He holds that all such propositions express necessary truths (necessary at least in re¬ spect to human intelligence), and yet that they are not to be tested by the criterion of contradiction ; and that, in their case, the predi¬ cate is in no way involved in the conception of the subject. He maintains that all the axioms of geometry and arithmetic are syn¬ thetic judgments a priori, and that the law of contradiction does not apply to them. His most prominent illustration is the proposition 7 + 5 = 12, which, he says, cannot be tested by this law. It is ob¬ vious, however, that it can ; and that therefore it is an analytic pro¬ position. For let us say “7 + 5 are unequal to 12 : ” but that is equivalent, to saying that 7 + 5 are not 7 + 5 (that a thing is not what it is) ; in other words, the predicate (unequal to 12) contradicts INTKODUCTION. 27 be no mere contribution to philosopbical literature. It must be no mere bringing together of materials for some other hand to arrange. How fond most of the contributors to science are of taking this view of their own labours ! Modest people ! As if any one would thank a mason who should say to him — “ There, sir, are the stones ; you can now build your house for yourself!’' It must embrace every essen¬ tial part of philosophy, thoroughly digested, and strictly reasoned out as a harmonious and consistent whole. It must show the exact point where every opinion and every controversy in philosophy takes off from the tap-root or main trunk of the great tree of speculation. The disputants themselves never an idea which is involved, either directly or indirectly, either proxi- mately or remotely, in the conception of 7 + 5, the subject of the proposition. The fact is, that all propositions expressing necessary or a priori truths are analytic or resolvent, and that many of them are, at the same time, ampliative. They are ampliative — that is to say, they add something to our knowledge — whenever the predicate is wrapped up in such profound latency on the subject as not to appear to be involved in it all. In such cases, a new conception appears to be added to the subject of the proposition ; but the truth is, that this new conception has not been really added to the subject, but has merely been forced out of it by a strong intellectual pressure. This latency of the predicate in the subject seems to have been the circum¬ stance which misled Kant in his account of the synthetic judgments a priori — and in his attempt to show that all such propositions (in¬ cluding the geometrical axioms) did not depend for their necessity on the principle of contradiction. In regard to his deduction of the categories of the understanding, which he sets forth as synthetic judgments a priori, our present limits permit merely this i-emark to be made, that these are either not necessary a priori principles of in¬ telligence, or, if they are so, the criterion of contradiction must be their test. 28 INSTITUTES OF METAPHYSIC. know where this point is. And thus, in its explan¬ atory matter, it ought to be a complete History, as well as a complete Body, of speculative science. At the very least, this much must be affirmed, that the defective condition of philosophy can be remedied, and a better state of matters brought about, only by a work which shall comply rigorously with both the requisitions laid down in § 2. . § 33. Truth will generally take care of itself, if a A remedial man looks vigilantly and conscientiously after the system unit- . . . „ ing truth and interests of the scientific reason. Although the mere impossible, semblauce of truth — that is, the plausibilities of ordinary thinking, are altogether repugnant to rea¬ son, there is a natural affinity between truth and reason which can never fail to bring them into contact when the inquirer knows exactly what he is aiming at, and is determined to reach it. Real - truth, therefore, is attainable, on account of its affi¬ nity to right reason ; and if a man has reason, he surely can use it rightly. Therefore no plea is avail¬ able against philosophy on the ground that it is an absolute impracticability, or that it is impossible to bring reason into harmony and coincidence with truth. § 34<. But the right use of reason ? That is the Single canon question. Here is where the difficulty lies, as most for the right i mi i • i iv/r i i i use of reason, people Will think. Many weary rules, for which INTRODUCTION. 29 no man was ever one whit the wiser, have been written on this threadbare theme. The following single canon is quite sufficient for all the purposes of a reasoned philosophy. The canon of all philo¬ sophy : “ A firm nothing except what is enforced by reason as a necessary truth — that is, as a truth the supposed reversal of which would involve a contradiction ; and deny nothing, unless its affir¬ mation involves a contradiction — that is, contra¬ dicts some necessary truth or law of reason.” Let this rule be strictly adhered to, and all will go on well in philosophy. Its importance, of course, consists, not in its being stated, but in its being practised . § 35. With regard to the particular scheme, or Institute of metaphysics, now submitted to the public, and in which these general views are en¬ deavoured to be carried into effect, this, at the outset, may be premised, that, while it cannot disclaim its pretensions to be both true and rea¬ soned, without arrogating to itself a modesty for which it would get no credit, — still it desires to rest its claims to consideration rather on the cir¬ cumstance that it is a system of demonstration, than on the circumstance that it is a system of truth. If it is truer than other systems, it is so only because it is demonstratively truer ; and if they are falser than it, this is only because they are demonstra- Tliis system of Institutes claims both truth and demonstra¬ tion, but i-ather de¬ monstration than truth. 30 INSTITUTES OF METAPHYSIC. It is a body of necessary truth. Its pretensions stated. tively falser. If the element of demonstration were subtracted, there cannot be a doubt that many sys¬ tems would appear to be much truer than this one. § 36. The general character of this system is, that it is a body of necessary truth. It starts from a single proposition which, it is conceived, is an essen¬ tial axiom of all reason, and one which cannot be denied without running against a contradiction. The axiom may not be self-evident in an instant ; but that, as has been remarked, is no criterion. A moderate degree of reflection, coupled with the ob¬ servations by which the proposition is enforced, may satisfy any one that its nature is such as has been stated. From this single proposition the whole system is deduced in a series of demonstrations, each of which professes to be as strict as any de¬ monstration in Euclid, while the whole of them taken together constitute one great demonstration. If this rigorous necessity is not their character to the very letter, — if there is a single weak point in the system, — if there be any one premiss or any one conclusion which is not as certain as that two and two make four, the whole scheme falls to pieces, and must be given up, root and branch. Everything is perilled on the pretension that the scheme is rigidly demonstrated throughout; for a philosophy is not entitled to exist, unless it can make good this claim. INTEODUCTION. 31 § 37. A trivial objection, which must here be noticed, may be taken to the system on the ground that it has borrowed from mathematics a method which is not applicable to philosophy. The applica¬ bility to philosophy of the method of strict demon¬ stration, is a question which can be settled only by the result. If the application is found upon trial to be successful, nothing more need be said ; if un¬ successful, no argument recommending its propriety can be of any avail, and no argument discounten¬ ancing its adoption can be of any use. The case is one which must decide itself ; and the point is a point which calls for no argument in the abstract. As for the charge that philosophy has borrowed the method of mathematics, it would be truer to say that mathematics, being a less profound science, and therefore susceptible of a much earlier maturity, have stolen, by anticipation, the proper method of philosophy. It is rather too much that one narrow section of human thought should be allowed to mo¬ nopolise the w^hole, and only, method of universal truth. § 38. The student will find that the system here submitted to his attention is of a very polemical character — more so, he may imagine, than is con¬ sistent with the nature of a scheme which looks only to truth, and to its own exhibition of it, troubling itself with no other considerations. This An objection to its method stated and obviated. The polemi¬ cal character of this sys¬ tem. 32 INSTITUTES OF METAPHYSIC. 'Why pliilo- •sophy must be polemical. She exists only to cor¬ rect the in¬ advertencies of ordinary thinking. point shall now obtain a full elucidation ; for the discussion enables us to explain exactly the object or business of philosophy. § 89. This system is in the highest degree polemi¬ cal ; and why ? Because philosophy exists only to ■ correct the inadvertencies of man's ordinary think¬ ing. She has no other mission to fulfil ; no other object to overtake ; no other business to do. If man naturally thinks aright, he need not be taught to think aright. If he is already, and without an effort, in possession of the truth, he does not require to be put in possession of it. The occupation of philo¬ sophy is gone : her office is superfluous : there is nothing for her to put hand to. Therefore philo¬ sophy assumes, and must assume, that man does not naturally think aright, but must be taught to do so ; that truth does not come to him spontaneously, but must he brought to him by his own exertions. But if man does not naturally think aright, he must think, we shall not say wrongly — (for that implies malice prepense) — but inadvertently ; and if truth be not his inheritance by nature, — if he has to work for it, as he must for all his other bread, — then the native occupant of his mind, his birthright succes¬ sion, must be, we shall not say falsehood — (for that, too, implies malice prepens^ — but it must be error. The original dowry, then, of universal man is inadvertency and error. This assumption is the INTRODUCTION. 33 ground and only justification of the existence of philosophy. § 40. If authority were of any avail in matters of pure speculation, abundant evidence, though not, mis might indeed, of the clearest or most unfaltering character antiy proved ' ® by the testi- (for what is clear or unfaltering in philosophy ?) might be adduced in confirmation of what is here advanced as the proper and sole object of philo¬ sophy. But it will be time enough to call these witnesses into court when our statement is denied, or when it has been shown that philosophy has, or can have, any other end in view than the recti¬ fication of the inadvertencies of man’s spontaneous and ordinary thinking.* § 41. This circumstance — namely, that philosophy exists only to put right the oversights of common me object (or business thinking — renders her polemical, not by choice, but by necessity. She would gladly avoid all fault- finding ; but she cannot help herself. She is con- troversial as the very tenure and vindication of her existence ; for how can she correct the slips of com¬ mon opinion, the oversights of natural thinking, ex¬ cept by controverting them ? § 42. To obviate the charge of disrespect which * Des Cartes and others, by laying down doubt as the initiatory ' probation of the speculative mind, have afforded confirmation of the opinion expressed in the text as to the polemic^ origin of philosophy. . C 34 INSTITUTES OF METAPHYSIC. might otherwise be brought against the philosopher The charge for holding verv cheap the spontaneous judgments of disrespect . . ^ ^ ° . which might of mankind, it may be proper to mention that it is phnosop^y” A-is own natural modes of thinking which he finds of her polem- fault with, much more than it is theirs. He is dealing ter, obviated, directly Only with himself. He is directly correcting only his own customary oversights. It is only indi¬ rectly, and on the presumption that other people are implicated in the same transgressions, — faults, how¬ ever, which he takes home more especially to himself, because he has no direct knowledge of them except within his own bosom, — that he challenges, and ventures to infer that he is rectifying their inadvert¬ ent thinking as well as his own. Let this be dis¬ tinctly understood once for all. The philosopher labours just as much as other people do under all ^ the infirmities incident to popular opinion. He is not one whit more exempt from the failings which he points out, and endeavours to put right, than any of his neighbours are. His quarrel is not with them ; . it is with himself — a subject which he is not only entitled, but which he is bound to reform and coerce as rigorously as he can. § 43. But further, it will be observed that this This system systeiu is antagonistic, not only to natural thinking, also adverse ?45Tand moreover, to many a point of psychological doctrine. This, too, is inevitable. Psychology, or “the science of the human mind,” instead of at- INTEODUCTION. 35 tempting to correct, does all in her power to ratify, - the inadvertent deliverances of ordinary thonght, — to prove them to be right. Hence psychology must, of necessity, come in for a share of the castigation which is doled out and directed upon common and natural opinion. It would be well if this could be avoided ; but it cannot. Philosophy must either forego her existence, or carry on her operations corrective of ordinary thinking, and subversive of psychological science. It is, indeed, only by acci¬ dent that philosophy is inimical to psychology ; it is because psychology is the abettor and accomplice of common opinion after the act ; but in reference to natural thinking, she is essentially controversial. Philosophy, however, is bound to deal much more rigorously and sternly with the doctrines of psycho¬ logy than with the spontaneous judgments of un¬ thinking man, because while these in themselves are mere oversights or inadvertencies, psychology con¬ verts them into downright falsities by stamping them with the countersign or imprimatur o*f a spe¬ cious, though spurious, science. In the occasional cases, moreover, in which psychology instead of ratifying, endeavours to rectify the inadvertencies of popular thinking, it shall be shown, in the course of this work, that, so far from being successful, she only makes matters worse, by complicating the ori¬ ginal error with a new contradiction, and sometimes with several new ones, of her own creation. 36 INSTITUTES OP METAPHYSIC. These remarks may be sufficient to explain, and also to justify, the polemical character of this work. It carries on a warfare by compulsion, not assuredly . by choice. So soon as man is horn with true and correct notions about himself and all other things, philosophy will take her departure from the world, for she will be no longer needed. § 44. To prevent, then, any mistake as to the ob- what philo- ject, or purpose, or business of philosophy, let it be sopliy has to , do, again again distinctly announced that the obiect of philo- distinctly o j ^ r stated. sophy is the correction of the inadvertencies of ordi¬ nary thinking ; and as these inadvertencies are gene- ' rally confirmed, and never corrected, by psychology, and are thus converted from oversights into some¬ thing worse, it is further the business of philosophy to refute psychology. This is what philosophy has to do. § 45. But this, though an essential, is only the Its positive negative part of the business of philosophy. In object still moredis- rectifying the inadvertencies of popular thought, metephyslcs^ and in subverting their abetment by psychology, philosophy must, of course, substitute something in their place. Yes 5 and that something is tkuth — so that the object, the business, the design, the pur¬ pose of philosophy, fully stated, is this, which may ‘ be laid down as the Definition of metaphysic: ' “ Metaphysic is the substitution of true ideas — that INTEODUCTION. 37 is, of necessary truths of reason — in the place of the oversights of popular opinion and the errors of psy¬ chological science.” That seems a plain enough statement, and it may serve as an answer to a ques¬ tion by which many people have professed themselves puzzled, — What are metaphysics ? This defini¬ tion is only a more special and explicit re-statement of the definition of philosophy given in § 5. It should be remarked that at every stage of its pro¬ gress, and ever as its course becomes clearer, the definition of philosophy admits of being laid down in terms more and more definite. Its opening defi¬ nition is always of necessity the least definite ; and the definition now given is not the most definite that the subject admits of. Indeed, it cannot be understood, except in a general way, until the true ideas — the necessary truths of reason, here referred to — have been exhibited ; but that can be done only in the Institutes themselves. The present definition, however, may serve to let peo¬ ple know precisely what philosophy or metaphysic proposes — what the instigating motives of specu¬ lative inquiry are ; — and it may also serve to clear people’s heads of the confusing notion that meta¬ physic is, in some way or other, vaguely convertible with what is called “the science of the human mind,” and has got for its object, — nobody knows what, — some hopeless inquiry about “ faculties,” and all that sort of rubbish. This must all come down, 38 INSTITUTES OF METAPHYSIC. Why philoso¬ phy under¬ takes this object. How pliiloso- phy goes to work. Ad¬ herence to canon — pro¬ position and counter-pro¬ position. when philosophy, who has hitherto been going about like an operative out of employment, seek¬ ing work and finding none, is put in a fair way of obtaining a livelihood by having discovered her proper vocation, and got something definite to do. § 46. The reason why philosophy takes in hand the work specified in the definition above, scarcely requires to be insisted on, or even pointed out. No reason need be given why truth should be made to take the place of error in the mind of man, except the reason that the comer-in is truth, and the goer- out is error. § 47. What the object of philosophy is having been explained, and why this is her object having been stated, it now remains to be shown how philo¬ sophy, or, at least, how this philosophy, goes to work in compassing her end. Adhering rigorously to the canon laid down in § 34, philosophy convicts the natural opinions of man of being contradictory. It would, indeed, be in the highest degree pre¬ sumptuous in philosophy to challenge the ordinary opinions of mankind if they were not contradictory, because, in that case, they would probably, or at all events they might possibly, be correct, and philo¬ sophy, at the best, would be merely supplanting one set of probabilities by another set. Not only, there- INTEODUCTION. 39 fore, must philosophy in consistency with her own canon, convict natural thinking of being contradic¬ tory, but her procedure would be arrogant and irra¬ tional in the extreme, unless she were able to pro¬ nounce this sentence, doing so under the authority of the necessary Reason itself. Each deliverance, then, of ordinary thinking contradicts some neces¬ sary law or truth of all reason. This is shown, not by any roundabout argument, but by directly con¬ fronting the natural opinions of man with the neces¬ sary truths or laws which they contradict. This consideration determines the following arrangement. The necessary truths or laws of all reason are laid down in a series of distinct propositions ; and facing each of these propositions is laid down in a counter¬ proposition, the contradictory inadvertency of ordi¬ nary opinion, so that we can always play them off against each other, and know exactly what we are dealing with, what we are contending /or, and what we are contending against. It will always be found that the psychological doctrine on any particular point coincides, either wholly or partially (generally wholly, or very nearly so), with the contradictory inadvertency of ordinary thought, and therefore the counter-propositions will be seen to represent faith¬ fully the erroneous teachings of psychology, as well as the inadvertent decisions of common opinion. Proposition and counter-proposition are the two hinges of the system. 40 INSTITUTES OF METAPHYSIC. § 48. The propositions and their demonstrations Further ex- constituto the text Or staple of the book. These are planationa _ aa to how the “ Institutes of Metaphysic.” The first proposi- philosophy X J i i goes to work, Only is laid down as axiomatic without any demonstration. Each proposition is followed by a series of observations and explanations, which are designed to clear up any obscurities and to remove any difficulties which may be felt to attach to the main propositions of the work, whether in thought or in expression, and to supply such critical and historical notices as may be deemed expedient. These comments are, of course, of a less rigorous character than the Institutes themselves. They are probably not so complete as they might be ; but, in general, it will be found that they indicate with sufficient precision the points where the larger and often where the lesser controversies of philosophy take off from the tap-root or main stem. The counter-propositions could not always, or indeed often, be placed in close juxtaposition with the pro¬ positions, for various good reasons. They take their places among the observations and explana¬ tions, and by them they are cleared up, in so far as any elucidation is thought necessary. It will be observed that the counter-propositions, occupying at each point an antagonist position, to the proposi¬ tions, form a very consistent scheme of apparent truth. The objection to it is, that it contradicts a necessary truth or principle of reason at every INTKODUCTION. 41 point. But if any one thinks otherwise, he has here made out to his hand a perfectly coherent scheme of psychological doctrine and of common opin¬ ion. He can embrace it if he likes, and abjure the true metaphysic altogether. He will find that truth and error are carried out simultaneously on parallel lines. He can make his choice between them. § 49. From this method of procedure, it is con¬ ceived that the following advantage will accrue. Advantages The reader will perceive, at each stage of his pro- thod. gress, which doctrine is right and which wrong. He will thoroughly understand each, through its contrast with the other. He will remark, not only what he is recommended to accept, but what he is recommended to give up. The incompatibility of the two opinions — the speculative and the common — will be obvious ; and it will be seen that the con¬ ciliation of ordinary thinking, or “ common sense,” as it is sometimes rather abusively called, and phi¬ losophy, can be very well effected by the former giving in her submission to the decisions of the compulsory reason. § 50. A system which, on any subject, and more particularly on a subject like this, contents itself Disadvan- with merely laying down the true or correct doctrine cSasting distinctly the on any point, does only half its work, and that half ‘‘"‘i t^e very imperfectly ; because the wrong opinion, not 42 INSTITUTES OF METAPHYSIC. General un- intelligibility of systems is due to their neglect to exhibit this contrast. being distinctly brought forward and expressly con¬ troverted, still retains possession of the student's mind, occupying it all the more inveterately, be¬ cause it occupies it obscurely. Indeed, in such a case the two positions, not being contrasted, are not seen to be incompatible. They still coexist, but in such a way that neither can be said properly to exist, or to have a clear and vigorous standing in the mind. The wrong opinion being combated, but only in a vague and very inexplicit manner, loses the force and vigour of its previous authority ; while the right opinion, being clouded by the obscure presence of the wrong one, and oppressed by its secret efforts to regain its former ascendancy, is enfeebled where it shines, and shorn of its brightest and most fructifying rays. This obscure and in¬ definite conflict between right and wrong opinion, between speculative and ordinary thinking, is the cause and origin of all scepticism, or philosophical indecision. § 51. The neglect, moreover, to lay down in dis¬ tinct terms this opposition between the right and the wrong, has been the occasion of the generally unintelligible character of metaphysics, and serves to account for nearly all their obscurities. Even a slight acquaintance with the history of philosophy may satisfy any one that the neglect to place the truths to be learned in prominent and conspicuous INTKODUCTION. 43 contrast with the errors to be relinquished, has been the cause, for the most part, of the unintelligibility of all previous speculations. Why are the Platonic “ ideas ” generally unintelligible ? Simply because Plato has not told us distinctly, and because no one knows exactly, what natural opinion this doctrine was advanced to controvert. W^hy is the unica suh- stantia of Spinoza, still without a meaning? For precisely the same reason. We do not exactly know what popular delusion it stands opposed to. Why are the “monads ” of Leibnitz, and the pre- established harmony ” of the same philosopher, still without a key, or provided only with one which will not fit the wards of the lock ? Just because he has not shown us distinctly what inadvertencies of com¬ mon thought these doctrines were designed to take the place of. Why is Hegel impenetrable, almost throughout, as a mountain of adamant? Because he has nowhere set before us and explained the pre¬ valent errors which, for aught we know to the con¬ trary, he may, like a gigantic boa-constrictor, be crushing within his folds. He may be breaking every bone in their body in his stringent circumvo¬ lutions, but we do not know that ; for he treats us to no observations bearing directly, or even bearing remotely, on the natural opinions which his doc¬ trines are, no doubt, in some obscure and unex¬ plained fashion of their own, intended to subvert. This negligence, or omission, confirms the truth of 44 INSTITUTES OF METAPHYSIC. what has been pointed out as the retarding cause of philosophy, namely, a loose grasp, an indistinct per¬ ception, of its leading principles, of its very alpha¬ bet — an imperfect apprehension of the work it had to do, of the object it proposed to overtake ; for surely, if these speculators had hnown what that work or object was, they would have said what it was, and moreover they would have done it. But on this topic they are either silent, or speak with such uncertain utterance that they might as well have been dumb. Hence, — men of the highest genius though they were, and “ Serene creators of immortal things,” they have left behind them legacies, the value of which is greatly impaired by their frequent incomprehensibility, which, again, is attributable almost entirely, to the circumstance that they took, in hand only one-half of their proper work. They may have given us truths — they no doubt did so ; but truths are unintelligible, or nearly so, unless when contrasted with their opposing errors, and these they kept studiously out of view. Hence, to speak in a general way of these, and of many other philosophical writers, they are not to he understood ; or if understood, it is not by any light which they themselves supply, but by a lamp which the reader must find and trim for himself, and bring with him to the research. The only light of every truth is its INTRODUCTION. 45 contrasting error ; and, therefore, in the contempla¬ tion and exhibition of truth, a philosopher should take especial care not to keep himself too loftily aloof from the contemplation and exhibition of error, as these proud spirits, Plato, Spinoza, Leibnitz, . and Hegel, most undoubtedly did, much to the detri¬ ment of their own profound disquisitions, and to the loss of mankind, who, had their method been differ¬ ent, might have profited more largely by their wisdom. § 52. This system, therefore, attempts to pursue a different and less lofty course. In endeavouring to Tins system make truth understood, it relies chiefly on the illu- mination which truth may receive from being placed in strong and clear contrast with error. It sets off the true by the aid of the opposing false. This con¬ sideration has prompted the somewhat novel method of “proposition” and “counter-proposition” — a me¬ thod which seems to be the only satisfactory mode of procedure in dealing with purely speculative mat¬ ters, as carrying with it certain decided advantages in the way of general intelligibility, and of putting an end to all scepticism, vacillation, or indecision of opinion on philosophical topics ; while the other method, which merely plans the exhibition of truth, and not the counter-exhibition of error, fails in all these important particulars. § 53. This institute of metaphysic is divided into 46 INSTITUTES OF METAPHYSIC. The three sections of tliis institute. Arrange¬ ment ex¬ plained and proved to be essential, (§§54-62.) The section called onio- lofly natur¬ ally comes iirst, — but is truly last in ' order. three main sections — an arrangement which will require some explanation, showing not only its general and convenient, but its essential and un- arbitrary character. In philosophy, nothing is left to the discretion of an individual thinker. His whole arrangement, every step which he takes, must be necessitated, not chosen. It must be pre¬ scribed and enforced by the object itself, not by his way of viewing it. Accordingly, the arrangement now alluded to is one which chooses and fixes itself as the only possible arrangement in its leading fea¬ tures, whatever modifications its details may undergo at the hands of subsequent inquirers. But this matter will require a good deal of elucidation, which is supplied in the following § §, 54-62, in which the general sections of our subject, and their order, are laid out. § 54. From what has been already said about the principles or first elements of philosophy being the last to show themselves, it is obvious that this is a science which naturally comes to us end foremost. The difl&culty is, so to turn round the whole huge machinery as to get its beginning towards us. But what is the end which comes to us first, but which we must so turn round as to make It revolve away from us, and come to us last ? It is this — announced in the form of a question — What is truth ? This is in itself the last or ultimate ; but to us it is always the INTEODUCTION. 47 first or proximate question of philosophy. The im¬ mediate answer which moves away this question, and so causes the whole structure to turn on its pivot, is this : Truth is — what is. Whatever abso¬ lutely is, is true. There can be no doubt about that. This answer instantly raises the question. But what is? That question can, at present, receive no answer except an evasive one. Its turn has not yet come. It must “ bide its time.” It must be turned away from us, or, like a mask, it must be taken off and laid aside. But its announcement proclaims and fixes one great section of philosophy — the divi¬ sion which has for its object the problem. What is true being — absolute existence ? This branch of the science is usually and rightly denominated Ontology (Xoyos tS^v ovrav — the science of that which truly is). § 55. The preliminary business of philosophy is, as has been said, so to turn round her whole array of questions as to make the first last, and the last first ; and this she can accomplish only by finding such answers as may serve to send the questions away from her without, in any degree, resolving them. Their solution can commence only when the whole revolution is effected, and when that which natu¬ rally comes last has been made to come first, and conversely ; because the questions which are made to come first contain all the elements necessary to the It must be made to re¬ volve away from us, in order to bring round the epistemo¬ logy, which, though it na¬ turally comes last, is truly first in order. 48 INSTITUTES OF METAPHYSIC. solution of those which naturally come first ; and, therefore, the latter cannot be entertained until after the former have been disposed of. Each answer, as it wards off its own question, must always be of such a character as to bring round a new question into view. This is exemplified in the case of the answer which wards off the general problem of ontology. The question, in its shortest form, is, What is ? And the parrying answer is — What is, is what is known. But that answer, while it sends away from us, in the mean time, the ontological question, instantly brings before us a new question, or rather new section of questions — this : But 'what is known, and what is knowing? This movement determines an¬ other whole section of philosophy ; indeed, it com¬ pletes the revolution, or at least we have now merely to find out the truly first question in regard to knowing and the known, to have before us the true beginning, the really proximate question of philosophy. This division explores and explains the laws both of knowing and of the known — in other words, the conditions of the conceivable ; laying out the necessary laws, as the laws of all knowing, and all thinking, and the contingent laws as the laws of our knowing and of our thinking. This section of the science is properly termed the epistemology — the doctrine or theory of knowing, just as ontology is the doctrine or theory of being (Xoyo? eWrijjuijs — the science of true knowing). It answers the INTEODUCTION. 49 general question, “ What is knowing and the known ? — or more shortly, “ What is knowledge ? ” The ontology cannot be approached, or even looked at, until this division has been thoroughly explicated. § 56. These, then, are the two main branches of our science. It is clear that we cannot declare what Epistemoiopy and ontology is — in other words, cannot get a footing on ontology the two main until we have ascertained what is known — in other pii>>osophy. words, until we have exhausted all the details of a thorough and systematic epistemology. It may be doubtful whether we can get a footing on ontology even then. But, at any rate, we cannot pass to the problem of absolute existence, except through the portals of the solution to the problem of knowledge. • Because we are scarcely in a position to say what is, unless we have at least attempted to know what - is ; and we are certainly not in a position to know what is, until we have thoroughly examined and resolved the question — What is the meaning of to ' know ? What is knowledge ? What is knowing and the known ? Until these questions be answered, it is vain and futile to say that absolute existence is that which is known. § 57. But even after the questions of the epistemo¬ logy have been resolved — even after all the laws of ^o®ogy does knowledge have been explored and laid out — are we no entrance** in a whit better position to take up and answer the why noff’ D 50 INSTITUTES OF METAPHYSIC. Because “ Absolute Existence” may be that which we are ignorant of. This consi¬ deration ne¬ cessitates a new section of philosophy called the aqnoiology. Its business. question — What is ? We are in a somewhat better position ; but our approach to ontology is still fenced and obstructed by a most baffling consideration, which is this : § 58. Absolute Being may be, very possibly, that which we are ignorant of. Our ignorance is exces¬ sive — it is far more extensive than our knowledge. This is unquestionable. After we have fixed, then, the meaning, the conditions, the limits, the object, and the capacities of knowledge, it still seems quite possible, indeed highly probable, that absolute exis¬ tence may escape us, by throwing itself under the cover, or within the pale, of our ignorance. We may be altogether ignorant of what is, and may thus be unable to predicate anything at all about it. This is a most confounding obstacle to our advance. It has iodeed, as yet, brought every inquirer to the dust, and thrown back every foot that has attempted to scale the hitherto unbreached and apparently im¬ pregnable fastnesses of ontology. Before commenc¬ ing our operations, therefore, it will be prudent and necessary to hold a council of war. § 59. This difficulty is to be surmounted, not by denying or blinking our ignorance, but by facing it ; and the only way of facing it, is by instituting an inquiry into its nature. We must examine and fix what ignorance is — what we are, and can be, igno¬ rant of. And thus we are thrown upon an entirely INTRODUCTION. 51 new research, constituting an intermediate section of philosophy which we term the AGNOIOLOGY, or - theory of ignorance (\6yos rijs ayvoim, — the theory of true ignorance). The result of this research is given out in its proper place in these Institutes. § 60. Now our course is pretty clear, and our way made straight before us. The epistemology has Now we can fixed what alone any intelligence can know. The problem of '' “ _ ontology — agnoiology has fixed what alone any intelligence can be ignorant of — consequently Absolute Exist¬ ence being either that which we know, or that which we are ignorant of (and it shall be demonstrated that there is no other alternative), it must respond either to the result of the epistemology, or to the result of the agnoiology. But if the result of the epistemology, and the result of the agnoiology are coincident (and their coincidence shall be demon¬ strated), then it matters not whether Absolute Be¬ ing be that which we know, or that which we are ignorant of ; we can demonstratively fix its charac¬ ter all the same ; we can screw it down, whichever of them it be ; we can attach to it a predicate, which is all that is wanted, and which is all that philosophy promises as her ultimate bestowal on mankind. All this shall be clearly shown in the ontology — the conclusion of which need not now be forestalled. This only may be added, that in solving the pro¬ blem — What is ? we shall have resolved definitively the ultimate or last question of all philosophy — that 52 INSTITUTES OF METAPHYSIC. Recapitula¬ tion of the three sec¬ tions. 1. Epis¬ temology. 2. Agnoio- logy. 3. On¬ tology. This' arrangement not arbitrary, but neces¬ sary. The necessity of keeping these divi¬ sions perfect¬ ly distinct. query which is always the first to make its appear¬ ance, but which requires to be staved off and off, until we have got in hand all the elements of its solution — What is Truth ? § 61. This paragraph need merely recapitulate that the three divisions of philosophy, as laid down in these Institutes, are, first, The Epistemology, or theory of knowledge ; secondly^ The Agnoiology, or theory of ignorance ; and, thirdly, The Ontology, or theory of being ; and that this arrangement is not dictated by the choice or preference of any indi¬ vidual thinker, but by the very necessity of the case, which will not admit of the problems of philosophy being taken up in any other order. § 62. The confusion which arises when any other division than that here laid down is attempted, is unspeakable — the dead lock which ensues is inex¬ tricable. It is not going too far to affirm that the whole embroilment of philosophy is due to the prac¬ tice usually indulged in, and never systematically abstained from, of taking in hand the question of ontology, and of predicating something about Being before the question of epistemology — that is, the question as to knowledge and its laws — has been thoroughly worked out and cleared. This, how¬ ever, is a mere consequence or accompaniment of the great retarding cause of philosophy already pointed INTEODUCTION. 53 out — of the attempt, namely, to get to the end, before we have got to the beginning. Numerous examples of the fatal effects of this preposterous (in the exact sense of that word) procedure, will come under our notice in the course of this work. It should, therefore, be especially borne in mind, that the epistemology excludes most rigorously from its • consideration, every opinion, and every question as to “ being ” or existence. It deals only with know¬ ing and the known, § 63. In connection with these remarks on the tvliat (or business, §§ 39-45), on the why (or reason, The natural 0V6rsigIits § 46), and on the how (or method, §§ 47-52), of of thought £tro roctiticd philosophy in general ; and on the character and “ ‘‘i*'®® details of these Institutes in particular (§§ 53-62), an observation, entitled to a separate paragraph, remains to be made, which is this, that the correc¬ tion of the inadvertencies of our natural thinking will be seen to be carried on throughout each of the sections of the system. Our natural oversights in regard to knowing and the known, are taken up and put right in the epistemology ; our natural oversights in regard to ignorance are taken up and put right in the agnoiology ; and our natural oversights in regard to being are taken up and put right in the ontology. § 64. Another consideration, also, of some import- 54 INSTITUTES OP METAPHYSIC. Remarks ob¬ viating any objections to tlie system, on theground tliat its con¬ clusions can¬ not at all times be pre¬ sent to the ' mind. ance, must here be noticed, as tending to obviate any disappointment which may arise in the reader’s mind from finding that the results and conclusions reached in this system are not at all times — are not, indeed, at any time during his ordinary moods, and these must occupy about ninety-nine parts of his existence — present to his conviction with the force and the vivacity which he might think desirable if they were true. But this is neither desirable nor necessary. Their perpetual presence would convert him from an agreeable human being into a nuisance, both to himself and others. It is the worst species of pedantry to entertain and parade the conclusions of science, either to ourselves or others, when engaged in the common business and intercourse of life ; just as it is the worst species of prudence to embrace the plausibilities of common opinion, the maxims of the salons and of the thoroughfares, when ministering at the altars of science. The two things should be kept everlastingly apart. All that is necessary is, that the reader should know that what is laid before him is the truth ; — it is not necessary that he should feel it to be so. The knowledge of it is all in all ; the want of feeling about it is of no moment whatever, and ought not to be listened to for an instant as any argument against its certainty. The interests of Truth would indeed be in a poor way, and our conception of her character not very exalted, were we to allow INTKODUCTION. 55 these interests to suffer from our inability to keep our faculties, at all times, upon a level with her astonishing revelations. To make truth contingent on the ordinary susceptibilities of man, would be to reduce her to a most deplorable dependency. To be distrustful of her, because our minds are not, at all times, or often, equal “ to the height of her great argument,"" is no unfrequent practice ; but it is carrying scepticism a little too far. It is pro¬ bable that many philosophers, and more people than they, have actually regarded truth as untrue, be¬ cause man"s faculties are incapable of grasping her deepest disclosures, except at rare intervals, and when on their widest stretch. But why can we not be satisfied in metaphysics, as we are in every other science, with knowing the demonstrated con¬ clusions without thinking it necessary, at every moment, to realise them, as it is called ? In philo¬ sophy alone, people are very prone to set down their own incompetency to realise the truth, to bring it home to their homely convictions, as, in a manner, fatal to her cause. But this incompetency is*a mere accident, it is entitled to no consideration ; and it is not held, by these very people, to prejudice the truth in any other science. Why should it, then, in metaphysics ? People pay a very poor compli¬ ment, not only to the truth, but also to the higher reason with which they have been endowed, when they suppose that the latter is subject to the juris- 56 INSTITUTES OF METAPHYSIC. diction of their own vulgar opinions, that it is at all affected by the cavils of their own ordinary judg¬ ment, or that it can be turned out of its inflexible , orbit by any collision with those earth-born and evanescent meteors of their own customary think¬ ing, which are perpetually crossing and obscuring, but certainly never deflecting, its colossal transit through the skies. § 65. The following is a case in point. The Continuation earth and “all that it inherit” are whirling through of these re- ° ° marks. spaco with a velocity which it requires rather large numbers to compute. We know that to be a fact ; but we cannot feel it ; — indeed, we feel the very contrary. In spite of science, we believe ourselves, at least when we are lying still, to be imperturbably at rest ; and this conviction is equally shared in by the profoundest astronomer reclining on his couch of down, and by the most unscientiflc peasant stretched upon his pallet of straw. An astronomer is not always an astronomer. When he comes down from his observatory, he leaves his computa¬ tions and his demonstrations behind him. He has done with them for, at least, a w'hile. He thinks, and feels, and speaks just like other people ; he takes the same view of the heavens and the earth that ordinary mortals do. His hat is bigger than . the sun. So of the metaphysician. He is not always a metaphysician. In common life, he can INTEODUCTION. 57 think, and feel, and speak, it is to be hoped, just like his neighbours. He can look at things just as they look at them, otherwise they would have ex¬ cellent reasons for regarding (as they are too apt to do without any such good provocation) his very name as an abomination. It is enough for him to hnoio that there is a higher region of thought and of truth into which he can ascend at will, with those who choose to go along with him, though neither he nor they need be constantly resident therein. Is a poet always a poet ? No. Down both poet and astronomer, and down, too, philosopher must come — down from their aerial altitudes — their proper regions — and out of these regions they must consent to pass the greater portion of their time. But when the philosopher is a philosopher ; when he has put on, like Prospero, his “garment;” when he has ascended to his w'atch-tower in the skies, and when he gives out the result, let him play the philosopher to some purpose, and let him not be a babbler in the land. Are we to suppose that the real revolu¬ tions of the celestial spheres differ widely from their apparent courses ; and that the same great law (namely, an analogous discrepancy between the real and the apparent) does not rule, and may not be found out, in the movements of human thought — that mightier than planetary scheme ? § 66. It may now be proper, although it is by no 68 INSTITUTES OF METAPHYSIC. Remark ob¬ viating any objection to this system on tlie score of presump¬ tion. means pleasant, to make a remark or two on the tone in which this work may appear to be conceived and executed. It may seem to adopt a somewhat presumptuous line of exposition in undertaking to lay down the laws, not only of our thinking and knowing, but of all possible thinking and knowing. This charge is answered simply by the remark that it would be still more presumptuous to exclude any possible thinking, any possible knowing, any pos¬ sible intelligence, from the operation of these laws — for the laws here referred to are necessary truths — their opposites Involve contradictions, and, there¬ fore, the supposition that any intelligence can be exempt from them is simply nonsense ; and, in so far, as senselessness is a sin, this supposition is sin¬ ful. It supposes that Reason can be Unreason, that wisdom can be madness, that sense can be nonsense, that cosmos can be chaos. This system escapes that sin. It is, therefore, less presumptu¬ ous, and more becoming in its moral spirit than those hypocritical inquiries which, by way of exalt¬ ing the highest of all reason, hold that this may be emancipated from the necessary laws of all thinking, and that these laws should be laid down as binding, not universally, but only on human intelligence.* * Existence is a category of human thought ; and therefore those reasoners, who are frightened by the bugbear which they call “ an- throporphism,” have no right to attribute it to the Deity ; but ought, in consistency, to be atheists. INTEODIJCTION. 59 § 67. But is it altogether essential, the reader may ask, to the purposes of this system, that the The indis¬ pensable ex¬ necessary laws should be laid down thus exten- tension of the necessary sively ? Is it not sufficient to fix them as abso- lutely authoritative over human intelligence only ? Because, if this were sufficient, it might be as well not to carry them out over all knowledge, or to in¬ sist upon their being valid for reason universally. But, good reader, this is not sufficient. It is abso¬ lutely indispensable (this must be confessed in the plainest terms) — it is absolutely indispensable for the salvation of our argument, from beginning to end, that these necessary laws should be fixed as authoritative, not over human reason only, but as binding on all possible intelligence. It is not possible, therefore, for the system to adopt any such suggestion as that here thrown out. And if the reader has any further misgivings as to the pro¬ priety of our course, we would recommend him to consider whether he does not hold that all reason is bound by the law of contradiction as expounded in § 28. Of course, if we may assign to intelligence universally any one necessary condition of thought and knowledge, the whole question is at an end, and must be held to be decided in favour of the views of this system. It should be added that the system does not assume, at the outset, that there is any intelligence except the human. Such an as¬ sumption is not necessary to enable it to get under 60 INSTITUTES OF METAPHYSIC. weigh, and would, therefore, be altogether irrele¬ vant. But it maintains that, if there be any other intelligence (either actual or possible) besides man’s, that intelligence must conform to the necessary laws, these being the essential conditions and constituents of all intellect and of all thought. § 68. As a further objection to this system, it An objection may perhaps be urged that the system is guilty of of’incons'S-^ the inconsistency of representing man as capable of conceiving what he cannot conceive. It is guilty of nothing of the kind. The system only represents man as capable of conceiving that many things which are inconceivable by him are, or, at any rate, may be conceived by other and higher intelli¬ gences (if such there be, for this is not assumed), and that therefore these things are not to be laid down as absolutely or in themselves inconceivable. Though they are inconceivable by us, they are still to be placed under the category of the conceivable, — a category or general head which, according to this system, has two subdivisions ; to wit, the conceivable by us, and secondly, the conceivable by some other intelligence (actual or possible), though not conceivable by us. This latter head compre¬ hends what we can conceive to be conceivable, though we cannot directly conceive it. Thus the category of the conceivable is one, though it has two subdivisions. Over against this category, and clearly INTEODIJCTION. 61 to be distioguished from it, stands the category of the absolutely, and, in itself, inconceivable — this throughout its whole extent is convertible with the contradictory, the absurd. § 69. To retort this charge of inconsistency, it may here be remarked, that the ordinary philoso- objection re- phical distinction of the conceivable and the incon- confusion of *■ philosophers ceivable is a distinction which sets every rule of 1? regard to the conceiv- logical division at defiance, and that it is one which, fncOTcefy-*’^ for long, has overridden speculation with a most calamitous oppression. The distinction is this : Things (using that word in a very general sense) are divided by philosophers into things conceivable by us on the one hand (these are placed under a distinct head or category by themselves, as the only properly conceivable), and, on the other hand, into things, still conceivable, though not conceivable by - us — and these are laid down under a separate head as the properly inconceivable, the inconceivable without any qualification. Now, observe what fol¬ lows from this : the inconceivable, as here laid down, is thus slumped together in the same general category with the absolutely inconceivable ; the in¬ conceivable by us, is placed in the same category with the inconceivable in itself — that is, with the contradictory and nonsensical. Surely the incon¬ ceivable by us, but still conceivable by others, has a much closer affinity to the conceivable by us than it 62 INSTITUTES OF METAPHYSIC. This confu’ sion illus¬ trated. has to the absolutely contradictory ; yet our philo¬ sophers have not thought so. Hence they have laid down a distinction, which is no distinction, but a confusion, a blundering dogma which has been most injurious — which has, indeed, been nothing less than ruinous for a time to the cause of genuine speculation. § 70. Suppose that a natural philosopher, dealing with the ponderable and the imponderable (if there be such a thing), were to divide the ponderable into the liftable hy us on the one hand (calling this only the properly ponderable), and, on the other hand, into the still liftable, though not by us ; and sup¬ pose he were to call the latter the unliftable, the imponderable without any qualification ; — in that case Ben Lomond would be set down among the imponderables, for it is certainly not liftable by us ; it would be classed along with things which are absolutely and in themselves imponderable — if any such things there be. And there are such things, though perhaps natural philosophy takes no account of them. The days of the week are imponderable ; and therefore Ben Lomond, according to this divi¬ sion, would have no more weight than those ab¬ stractions which we call Monday and Tuesday. This is precisely the distinction which philosophers have generally taken between the conceivable and the inconceivable. Where would natural science INTEODUCTION. 63 have been had it indulged generally in divisions of this description ? It would have been where meta¬ physical philosophy is now. § 71. The confusion here pointed out and illus¬ trated, has led all philosophers to make game of the laws of thought. Confounding the simply in¬ conceivable by us with the absolutely inconceivable, they tell us that many things which are absolutely inconceivable we must nevertheless conceive to ex¬ ist — that is to say, we must think what the laws of thinking (according to the showing of these philo¬ sophers) prevent us from thinking. We are called upon to think a thing to exist, which, in the same breath, they tell us we cannot think at all. In a word, they tell us that we can think what they tell us we cannot think ; and what is that but making game of the laws of thought, and turning the whole code into ridicule ? For example, the law is laid down broadly that we cannot think anything out of relation to ourselves ; but before the sound of these words has died away, we are told that we must and do think things out of relation to ourselves. Surely there is something very wrong in that statement. Either the law which it lays down is not the law, or, if the law, it must be so binding that we can¬ not think things otherwise that as it prescribes. But philosophers do not like to be held too tightly to their own terms ; they do not always relish All other sys¬ tems make game of the laws of thought. 64 INSTITUTES OF METAPHYSIC. The incon¬ sistency of philosophers inextricable. being taken at their own word. They are very fond of playing fast and loose with their own statements. § 72. Perhaps it may be thought that the con¬ fusion or inconsistency here pointed out admits of extrication. It admits of none — at least of none which is at all satisfactory. The philosopher may say that, by the “ absolutely inconceivable,” he means merely the inconceivable hy us. If so, then his statement just amounts to this, that we may rationally suppose many things to exist which are simply inconceivable by us, but still conceivable by other intelligences, actual or possible — a proposition which may he very readily admitted. But in making that statement, why should he confound thought and language by breaking down, or at any rate by not keeping up, so palpable and important a dis¬ tinction as that which subsists between the merely inconceivable by us, and the absolutely inconceiv¬ able in itself? The former falls properly under the category of the conceivable ; because if a thing is conceivable at all, if we can conceive it as con¬ ceivable by any possible intelligence, that consider¬ ation is sufficient to place it in this category : the latter constitutes the category of the properly in¬ conceivable, and is, as has been said, convertible with the contradictory. § 73. Again, when the absurdity of saying that INTEODrCTION. 65 “ we ought to think something to exist which we cannot think at all/’ is pointed out, the philosopher’s Their laws ’ ^ of thought defence is sometimes this: When hard pressed, he always turn says that by “think,” in the latter clause, he means “ imagine,”— to the fancy. This admission brings to lisfht a new feature in his case. We thought that he had been treating us to an exposi¬ tion of the laws of thought ; but no, he is treating us, it seems, only to an exposition of the laws of imagination. Had this been explained at the out¬ set, no possible mistake could have arisen, and the truth of all that was advanced would have been readily admitted. But it is not explained, either at the outset or in the sequel. From first to last the psy¬ chologist gives out that he is laying down the laws, not of imagination, but of intellect — not of fancying, but of thinking : and therefore his table is either contra¬ dictory (§ 71), or it is confused (§ 72), or it places before us something different from what it professes to place before us, and something which we do not want (§ 73), We do not require to be told that we may very well think something to exist which we cannot imagine. We assent to that truism as in- . disputable. But when we are told, as we sometimes are, that we can think something to exist which we cannot think of at all — in these words, our reason encounters the shock of a contradiction. These re¬ marks apply not to any one psychologist, but to all — indeed, rather to the whole system than to its 66 INSTITUTES OF METAPHYSIC. This system does not make game of tlie laws of thought. It abridges tile grounds of contro¬ versy. expounders. Who is chiefly responsible for con¬ founding the conceivable and the inconceivable, it would be very difficult to say. § 74. The system contained in these Institutes does not make game of the laws of thought. It means what it says, and it stands to what it says. What it declares we cannot think, it declares we can not think. It does not make the tail of an affirmation eat in its own head, as all our popular psychology does. It lays down the laws of thought, not as laws which exist only to be broken, but as laws which exist only to be binding. It teaches that man thinks and can think only in conformity with the laws of intelligence, and not, as all psychology teaches, that man thinks and can think in opposition to these laws. It intends to be taken literally at its word. § 75. All other systems controvert each other largely, and at many points. This system is incon¬ trovertible, it is conceived, in every point ; but, at the very utmost, it is controvertible only in its start¬ ing-point, its fundamental position. This, therefore, seems to be no little gain to philosophy, to concen¬ trate all possible controversy upon a single point — to gather into one focus all the diverging lances of the foe, and direct them on a single topic. The system, as has been remarked, holds this point, no INTRODUCTION. 67 less than all the others, to he indisputable ; but should this be doubted, it cannot be doubted that it is the only disputable point. Hence the system humbly piques itself on having abridged the grounds of philosophical coutroversy — on having, if not abol¬ ished, at any rate reduced them to their narrowest possible limits. § 76. This introduction maybe appropriately ter¬ minated by an explanation of the means by which these Institutes have succeeded in getting to the beginning, or absolute starting-point, of philosophy — for the beginning will be itself better understood if the reader has been brought to understand how it has been reached. Indeed, unless he understands this, the starting-point will probably appear to him to be arbitrary ; he will still be possessed with a suspicion that some other starting-point was pos¬ sible. But so soon as he sees how this starting- point is attained, that suspicion will disappear : he will see that no other beginning could have been selected. § 77. The epistemology, as has been said, is the proximate section of our science ; that is, it is the first which has to be entered on, and got through. The comprehensive question, coextensive with this whole division, is, — What is knowledge ? — what is knowing and the known ? But this, in its present Conclusion of introduc¬ tion, explain' ing how the starting- point of phi¬ losophy is reached. (§§ 76-85). How the starting- point is reached. 68 INSTITUTES OF METAPHYSIC. shape, is a most elusory, unmanageable, and indeed incomprehensible problem. We cannot lay hold of it. It seems to have no handle. It presents no prominence, big or little. Where is the right end of this ball of string ? Is it a ball of string, or is it a ball of stone ? Because, if it be a ball of stone, it will scarcely be worth while to try to unwind it. • No man's fingers can untwist a cannon-ball. It is, however, a ball of string, only the difficulty is to find its outermost end ; and, until this be found, the attempt to wind it off is of course hopeless. At any rate, let us take especial care (a caution which, as we have already hinted, has been far too little heeded) not to wind on another ball over this one. But to speak less figuratively ; — although we have found out that the epistemology is the proxi¬ mate division of philosophy, we have still to dis¬ cover what the proximate question is in the vague, confused, and comprehensive problem which occu¬ pies this section. The difficulty is not merely to break it down, but to find the fundamental question, the one and true and only beginning, among its frag¬ ments. § 78. The Platonic Socrates is gravelled by this Plato, in same difficulty in “ the Thesetetus ” of Plato. Al- TllGJGtCtUS fails to reach though Socrates sees the difficulty very clearly, he the starting- ° J J J’ point. (Joes not see the solution, — or at any rate he keeps it to himself “What is knowledge?” he asks The- INTEODUCTION. 69 getetus. “ Knowledge,” answers Theastetus, “ con¬ sists of geometry and such other matters as we have . been now talking about.” The reply of Socrates is very happy and highly characteristic, though not very instructive. “ You have answered,” says he, “ most generously — indeed, most munificently ; — I may say, quite like a prince. Being asked for a single thing, you have given me I know not how many things ; and that, Theaetetus, is what I call acting nobly towards an old ignoramus like me.” This banter throws Thesetetus somewhat aback ; upon which Socrates proceeds to explain himself. “ You have rather missed,” says he, “ the point of my question. I did not ask you what things there is a knowledge of^ — but what knowledge itself is.” This explanation, although it lays the finger on the right point, does not mend matters much ; for when the two friends proceed to discuss this question, keeping as near to it as they can, which is not very near, the question is very soon lost sight of, like a river running underground, to make its appearance in occasional glimpses at the surface in some of the other dialogues. Plato did not get, or at any rate did not show that he had got to the beginning, the starting-point of philosophy. § 79. We must try, therefore, what we can make of this question (What is knowledge ?) for ourselves, search for ^ ^ ° ' the starting- It constitutes, as has been said, the general problem point- 70 INSTITUTES OF METAPHYSIC. of the first section of our science. Why, then, can we not make it the immediate object of our inquiry ? The reader may suppose that although it might he more convenient to begin with a simpler question, if one could be obtained, still, in the absence of this, it might answer well enough to take in hand the question we have got. But if that could be done, philosophy would be a mere arbitrary science, — a system contingent for its commencement not on the necessity of the case, but on the choice or conve¬ nience of the philosopher. And this circumstance would be altogether destructive of the truth and excellence of philosophy. It would vitiate the cha¬ racter, — it would take away the value, — it would let out the soul of her instructions. It is not, therefore, mainly on account of the complication of this question that it has to be set aside, — nor is it mainly on account of any expected simplicity in the new question, that we are anxious to search it out, and bring it forward. No doubt the one question is the more complex, and the other will be found the more simple ; but that is a secondary consideration, and one which does not necessarily compel us to put aside the original question, and go in search of a new one. But unless we are compelled to this by necessity, and not by choice or convenience, our course would be optional and arbitrary ; and this it must not be, if our philosophy is to be given out, or is to be accepted, as true. No man is entitled, in INTEODUCTION. 71 philosophy, to say that a thing is true, if he can pos¬ sibly help thinking it to be true. No man is entitled, in philosophy, to take any one step, if he could pos¬ sibly have taken any other.* § 80. Why, then, can we not take up and discuss at once the question — What is knowledge ? For this very sufficient reason, that it is not intelligible. No intellect can attach any but the very vaguest meaning to the question as it stands. It is ambi¬ guous ; it has more meanings than one ; and there¬ fore it cannot be understood in its present form. W e are, therefore, /orcecZ to turn away from it ; because no man can deal with what cannot be understood. Thus our relinquishment of the question is not op¬ tional, but necessitated ; it is not chosen, but com¬ pulsory ; and thus, too, our selection of a new ques¬ tion, as our starting-point, is not simply convenient; it is constraining ; it is not eligible, but inevitable. So far, therefore, our procedure is not arbitrary, but compelled — as it always must be, if any good is to come of our speculations. § 81. The question, however, which we are seek¬ ing, must still have some reference to the question — * A popular error in regard to philosophy is, that it consists of truths which man, at his best, alone can think ; whereas the right view is, that philosophy consists of truths which man, at his icorst, do what he will, cannot help thinking — only he does not know that he is thinking them. Why the question — What is knowledge ? cannot be the starting- point. 72 INSTITUTES OF METAPHYSIC. This question resolved into two ques¬ tions. Which of them is our question, — and the first' in philoso- piiy- What is knowledge ? because this, in its obscurity, is the capital problem of our first section. The new question must be this question in a clear, presentable, and intelligible form. Now, when well considered, it will be found that the question, What is knowledge ? must mean one of two things. It must mean either, yirsif, What is know¬ ledge in so far as its kinds differ ? In plainer words — What different kinds of knowledge are there ? Or it must mean, secondly^ What is know¬ ledge in so far as its various kinds agree ? In plainer words — What is the one invariable feature, quality, or constituent, common to all our cognitions, however diverse and multifarious these, in other respects, may be ? § 82. The unintelligible question, W^hat is know¬ ledge? having been resolved into the two intelli¬ gible questions, first, What different kinds of knowledge are there ? and, secondly, What identi¬ cal point is there in all the kinds of knowledge ? — we have to consider which of these questions is our question — which of them is the truly proximate question of the epistemology. The one or the 4 other of them must be this ; for the question. What is knowledge ? is not susceptible of being analysed into any other alternatives than these two. Which of them, then, is our question ? Theaetetus, it will have been observed (§ *78), was of opinion, rather INTEODUCTION. 73 unguardedly, that the first was the question of philosophy. Socrates very speedily undeceived him ; for surely no philosophy is required to teach us that the different kinds of knowledge are the mathematical, the historical, the grammatical, and so forth. The other alternative, therefore (although Socrates here gives us no light), must be the ques¬ tion of philosophy, and it is so. It is the foundation- question — the beginning, with no anterior begin¬ ning ; and its answer is the absolute starting-point of metaphysics, or speculative science. § 83. An anterior question may indeed be raised — Is there any identical quality, any common centre, any essential rallying-point in all our cognitions? But that question can be determined only by the result of the research.* If there is no such point, or if no such point can be found, no philosophy is possible ; but if such a common point or quality can be found, and is found, then philosophy can exist, and can go forth tracing out the consequences which flow from the answer she has given. That * Perhaps this question ought to have been discussed in the In¬ troduction as one of the preliminary articles of the science. Its settlement, showing that there is such a point or element, should, in strict order, precede the proposition which declares what that element is. But such advantages in the way of clearness and in¬ telligibility are gained by keej)ing the starting-point (Proposition I.) just as it is, — for, after all, it is the true commencement ; and so much discussion arises under the question refen-ed to, that it has been thought better to introduce it, at a later stage, into the body of the work. It forms the thesis of Proposition VI. That philoso¬ phy has a starting- point is proved by the fact that its starting- point has been found. 74 INSTITUTES OF METAPHYSIC. Starting- point must state the essential of knowledge. Experience may confirm, hut reason alone can establish its truth. Re-state- ment of the first or proxi¬ mate ques¬ tion of philo sophy. there is such a point, is proved by the fact that such a point has been found. § 84. The common point, or quality, or feature in all our knowledge must be such an element as is necessary or essential to the constitution of every datum of cognition. In other -words, it must be such an element that, if taken away, the whole datum is, of necessity, extinguished, and its restora¬ tion rendered absolutely impossible until the missing element is restored. The element which we must find as a reply to the first question of philosophy must be of this character, otherwise it would not answer the purposes of a strictly-reasoned scheme : it would not be the one point present in every cognition. Experience may confirm the truth of the answer ; but Reason alone can establish it effectually. § 85. To re-state, then, the fundamental or prox¬ imate question of philosophy, it is this — What is 'the one feature which is identical, invariable, and essential in all the varieties of our knowledge ? What is the standard factor which never varies while all else varies? What is the ens unum in omnibus notitiis?^ * All science is the ascertainment of the One in the Many, the In¬ variable in the Variable ; and hence metaphysic, in commencing with the question here proposed, is merely folio-wing the analogy of the other sciences. INTRODUCTION. 75 § 86. That is the first question of philosophy — the first question which it can have; and its its answer is . , , the absolute answer is the absolute starting-point of metaphysics, p “j'nt^r d That answer is given in the first proposition of these Institutes, which proposition it consti- insututer^ tutes. r^v'. « * •■ •■ ■■•■■. y”’ • ' f' * * ' qtmH' i^wci. aill lij JiidT 6’ ^■""' - • •* ■ ‘■^' -) . •> . xr ^ , .ir«^-,^>/.f.'«.. ft .*.. ..;<,S> • •» ftWOT ^ 'r ■'■'>»**>>< ' '•' ' ■;''■*■ Et^'k •'“■ ■i • ;>>*■' i|7 V *-*'• vHiA -'J w’. ■* ■'^* 'P • IV'^"^ ■ ' ■■ ’■%» ;Mft£ : *? ,-,<• >V'«- ■■■'’ ♦i Alik. ' « * ,' ,f' r* - .1 ''•^-■■ ’•' >-,- ,•'. • W‘ ' a , ■ -. . " .'1 * . > ** ■W'V "* • '% ' - • -V ,,f.*- i ‘■f‘’V'»V*£ '»• '■ •■■■'‘‘tJ r _.. ■• ■'* h !*■ ^ft ” V ^'i. f ♦ ^rtijA^L ,v'j •• J t SECTION I. THE EPISTEMOEOfiY, OR THEORY OF KNOWING. PROPOSITION L,, THE PRIMARY LAW OR CONDITION OF ALL KNOWLEDGE. Along with whatever any intelligence knows, it must, as the ground or condition of its knowledge, have some cognisance of itself. OBSERVATIONS AND EXPLANATIONS. 1. Self or the “me” is the common centre, the continually known rallying-point, in which all our prop. i. an- . . I T • 1 swers the coernitions meet and agree. It is the ens unum, et first question ° ° . . . . philoso- semper cognitum, in omnibus notitiis. Its apprehen- P''y- sion is essential to the existence of our, and of all, knowledge. And thus Proposition I. forms an ex¬ plicit answer to the question laid down in the Intro¬ duction (§ 85) as the first question of philosophy : What is the one feature present in all our know¬ ledge, — the common point in which all our cogni¬ tions unite and agree, — the element in which they are identical ? The ego is this feature, point, or element : it is the common centre which is at all 80 INSTITUTES OF METAPHYSIC, PROP. I. It expresses tlie most ge¬ neral and essential law of all know¬ ledge. times known, and in which all our cognitions, how¬ ever diver.se they may be in other respects, are known as uniting and agreeing ; and besides the ego, or oneself, there is no other identical quality in our cognitions — as any one may convince himself upon reflection. He will find that he cannot lay his finger upon anything except himself, and say — This article of cognition I must know along with what¬ ever I know. 2. The apprehension of oneself by oneself is the most general and essential circumstance on which knowledge depends, because, unless this law be com¬ plied with, no intellectual apprehension of any kind is possible ; and wherever it is complied with, some kind of knowledge is necessary. Each of the sub¬ sequent propositions (with the exception of the last of the epistemology) gives expression to a necessary law of knowledge ; but this first proposition lays down the fundamental necessitv to which all intelli- gence is subject in the acquisition of knowledge. It states the primary canon in the code of reason from which all the other necessary laws are derivations. 3. The condition of knowledge here set forth is not an operation which is performed once for all, and then dispensed with, while we proceed t(T the cognition of other things. Neither is it an operation which is ever entirely intermitted, even when our THEOEY OF KNOWING. 81 attention appears to be exclusively occupied with prop. matters quite distinct from ourselves. The know- - ledge of self is the running accompaniment to all tiiat seif-con- our knowledge. It is through and along with this knowledge that all other knowledge is taken in. knows anything. 4. An objection may be raised to this proposition on the ground that it is contradicted by experience, objection ° _ . that self-con- It may be said that when we are plunged in the sciousness active pursuits of life, or engaged in the contempla- tion of natural objects, we frequently pass hours, it may be days, without ever thinking of ourselves. This objection seems to militate against the truth of our first proposition. How is it to be obviated ? 5. If the proposition maintained, that our atten¬ tion was at all times clearly and forcibly directed objection ob- viated. Pro- upon ourselves, or that the me was constantly a position ex- ^ plained. prominent object of our regard, the objection would be fatal to its pretensions. The proposition would be at once disproved by an appeal to experience ; for it is certain that during the greater part of our time we take but little heed of ourselves. But a man may take very little note, without taking abso¬ lutely no note of himself. The proposition merely asserts that a man (or any other intelligence) is never altogether incognisant, is never totally oblivi¬ ous, of himself, even when his attention is most , engaged with other matters. However far it may 82 INSTITUTES OF METAPHYSIC. PROP, be carried, the forgetfulness of self is only partial and apparent ; it is never real and total. There is always a latent reference of one's perceptions and thoughts to oneself as the person who experiences them, which proves that, however deeply we may be engrossed with the objects before us, we are never ■ stripped entirely of the consciousness of ourselves. And this is all that our proposition contends for. There is a calm unobtrusive current of self-con- • sciousness flowing on in company with all our know¬ ledge, and during every moment of our waking existence ; and this self-consciousness is the ground or condition of all our other consciousness. Nine hundred and ninety-nine parts of our attention may be always devoted to the thing or business we have in hand : it is sufficient for our argument if it be admitted that the thousandth part, or even a smaller fraction, of it is perpetually directed upon our¬ selves. 6. But how is our apparent self-oblivion to be Our apparent explained ? If it is not to be accounted for on the inattention ... •, . • i n to self ac- supposition that we ever drop entirely out ot our counted for _ by the prin- qwu ohservatiou, we must be prepared to explain it ciple of fanu* liarity. some Other principle. And so we are. This oversight, which in many cases is all but complete, may be accounted for in the most satisfactory man¬ ner by means of a principle of our nature which - may be termed the law of familiarity, the effect of THEOEY OF KNOWING. 83 which law is well expressed in the old adage, prop. “ Familiarity breeds neglect.” AVhatever we are . - extremely intimate with, we are very apt to over¬ look ; and precisely in proportion to the novelty or triteness of any event are the degrees of our atten- . tion called forth and exercised. We are enchained by the comparatively rare, — we are indifferent to¬ wards the comparatively frequent. That which is strange rivets our intellectual gaze, — that to which we are accustomed passes by almost unheeded. No influence has a greater effect than use and wont in dimming the eye of attention, and in blunting the . edge of curiosity. This truth might be illustrated to an unlimited extent. It is sufficient for the pre¬ sent purpose to remark, that each of us is more familiar, and is therefore less occupied, with himself than he is with any other object that can be brought under his consideration. We are constantly present to ourselves, — hence we scarcely notice ourselves. - We scarcely remark the condition of our knowledge, so unremittingly do we obey it. Indeed, in our ordinary moods we seem to slip entirely out of our own thoughts. This is the inevitable consequence ^ of our close familiarity, our continual intimacy, our unbroken acquaintance with ourselves. But we never do slip entirely out of our own thoughts. However slender the threads may be which hold a man before his own consciousness, they are never completely broken through. 84 INSTITUTES OF METAPHYSIC. PROP. 7. There is this consideration, also, to be taken into account, that the part of our knowledge which Also by the Stlm consists of things of sense always naturally attracts of sensi’we^ our attention much more forcibly than that part of experience. whicli is apprehended by intellect merely. But ■ that which we call “I” is the object of intellect alone. We are never objects of sense to ourselves. A man can see and touch his body, but he cannot see and touch himself. This is not the place to offer any observations on the nature of the thinking prin¬ ciple. The assertion that it either is, or is not, immaterial, must at present be avoided, as dogmatic, hypothetical, and premature — indeed, as altogether inconsistent with the purpose and business of the epistemology. But this much may be affirmed, that, when the cognisance of self is laid down as the condition of all knowledge, this of course does not mean that certain objects of sense (external things, to wit) are apprehended through certain other objects of sense (our own bodies, namely), for such a statement would be altogether futile. It would leave the question precisely where it found it ; for we should still have to ask, On what con¬ dition are these other objects of sense apprehended? To say that the things of sense are made known to us by means of the things of sense, does not advance us one step on the high-road to truth. The me, therefore, whether it be material or not — a point on which, at present, we offer no opinion — is certainly THEOEY OF KNOWING. 85 not our own bodies, in so far as these are, or may prop. be made, objects of sense ; * and not being an - object of sensible, but only of intellectual experi¬ ence, and our attention being naturally held cap¬ tive by the things of sense, it is not surprising that these latter should cause us to attend but slightly to ourselves in our ordinary moods, and in the common transactions of life. Thus the slight degree of notice which we usually take of ourselves is sufficiently explained, — without its being necessary to resort to the hypothesis that the oversight is ever total, — by means of these two circumstances — the operation of the law of familiarity, and the fact , that the ego is no object of sensible experience. 8. A theory of self-consciousness, opposed to the doctrine advanced in our first proposition, has been a theory of self-con - sometimes advocated. It reduces this operation to sciousnessat variance with a species of reminiscence : it affirms that we are ^ cognisant of various sensible impressions, and are not conscious of ourselves until we reflect upon them afterwards. But this doctrine involves a contradic¬ tion ; for it supposes us to recollect certain impres¬ sions to have been ours, after they have been experienced, which we did not know to be ours when they were experienced. A man cannot re¬ member what never happened. If the impressions * That the ego cannot be known to be material, is proved in its proper place. (See Proposition VIII.) 86 INSTITUTES OF METAPHYSIC. PROP. I. Importance of Prop. I. as foundation ol the whole system. were not known to be ours at the time, they could not subsequently be remembered to have been ours, because their recollection would imply that we re¬ membered an antecedent connection between our¬ selves and them ; which connection, however, had no place in our former experience, inasmuch as this theory declares that no self was in the first instance apprehended ; — therefore, if the impressions are re¬ cognised on reflection to have been ours, they must originally have been known to be ours. In other words, we must have been conscious of self at the time when the impressions were made. 9. Looked at in itself, or as an isolated truth, our first proposition is of no importance 5 but viewed as the foundation of the whole system, and as the single staple on which all the truths subsequently to be advanced depend, it cannot be too strongly insisted on, or too fully elucidated. Everything hinges on the stability which can be given to this proposition — on the acceptance it may meet with. If it falls, the system entirely fails ; if it stands, the system entirely succeeds. It is to be hoped that the reader will not be stopped or discouraged by the apparent truism which it involves. He may think that, if the main truth which this philosophy has to tell him is, that all his cognitions and perceptions are known by him to be his own, he will have very little to thank it for. Let him go on, and see what follows. Mean- THEOEY OF KJSTOWING. 87 while, considering the great weight which this pro- prop. position has to hear, we may be excused for bestow- - ing a few more w'ords on its enforcement. 10. If this first proposition is not very clearly confirmed by experience, it is at any rate not refuted It is not re- . nt' r' 1 futed but by that authority. No one, by any effort of the rather con- ^ J J ^ firmed by mind, can ever apprehend a thing to the entire ex- experience, elusion of himself. A man cannot wittingly leave himself altogether out of his account, and proceed to the consideration of the objects by which he is surrounded. On the contrary, he will find that, nolens volens, he carries himself consciously along with him, faint though the consciousness may be, in all the scenes through which he passes, and in all the operations in which he is engaged. He will find that, when he is cognisant of perceptions, he is always cognisant of them as his. But this cognisance is equivalent to self-consciousness, and therefore it is reasonable to conclude that our pro¬ position is not only not overthrown, but, moreover, that it is corroborated by experience. 11. But it is Reason alone which can give to this proposition the certainty and extension which are its best evi- ^ ^ deuce is rea- required to render it a sure foundation for all that yyteh is to follow. Experience can only establish it as a limited matter of fact ; and this is not sufficient for the purposes of our subsequent demonstrations. It 88 INSTITUTES OF METAPHYSIC. PROP, must be established as a necessary truth of reason — - as a law binding on intelligence universally — as a conception, the opposite of which is a contradiction and an absurdity. Strictly speaking, the proposi¬ tion cannot be demonstrated, because, being itself the absolute starting-point, it cannot be deduced from any antecedent data ; but it may be explained in such a way as to leave no doubt as to its axiom¬ atic character. It claims all the stringency of a -geometrical axiom, and its claims, it is conceived, are irresistible. If it were possible for an intelli¬ gence to receive knowledge at any one time without knowing that it was his knowledge, it would be pos¬ sible for him to do this at all times. So that an intelligent being might be endowed with knowledge . without once, during the whole term of his existence, knowing that he possessed it. Is there not a con¬ tradiction involved in that supposition ? But if that supposition be a contradiction, it is equally contra¬ dictory to suppose that an intelligence can be con¬ scious of his knowledge, at any single moment, ' without being conscious of it as his. A man has knowledge, and is cognisant of perceptions only when he brings them home to himself. If he were not aware that they were his, he could not be aware of them at all. Can I know without knowing that ' it is / who know ? No, truly. But if a man, in knowing anything, must always know that he knows it, he must always be self-conscious. And therefore THEORY OP KNOWING. 89 reason establishes our first proposition as a necessary prop. truth — as an axiom, the denial of which involves a - - contradiction, or is, in plain words, nonsense. 12. Every metaphysical truth is faced by an op¬ posite error which has its origin in ordinary think- First coun- ter-proposi- ing, and which it is the business of speculation to tion. supplant. It will conduce, therefore, to the eluci¬ dation of our first proposition, if, following the plan laid down in the Introduction (§ 47), we place alongside of it the counter-proposition which it is designed to overthrow. First counter-proposition : “ To constitute knowledge, all that is required is that there should be something to be known, and - an intelligence to know it, and that the two should be present to each other. It is not necessary that this intelligence should be cognisant of itself at the same time.” 13. This counter-proposition gives expression to the condition of knowdedge, as laid down by ordi- it embodies , . . . the result of nary thinking ; and, it may be added, as laid down ^ by our whole popular psychology. To constitute psy^chology knowledge, there must be a subject or mind to know, and an object or thing to be known : let the two, subject and object (as they are frequently called, and as we shall frequently call them), be brought together, and knowledge is the result. This is the whole amount both of the common opinion 90 INSTITUTES OF METAPHYSIC. PROP, and of the psychological doctrine as to the origin - of knowledge. The statement does not expressly deny that the subject must always know itself, in order to he cognisant of the object. It neither de¬ nies nor admits this in express terms ; and, there¬ fore, it is not easy to grapple with the ambiguity which it involves. But it certainly leans more to the side of denial than to the side of affirmation. The ordinary psychological doctrine seems to be, that the subject, or mind, is at times cognisant of itself to the exclusion of the object, and is at times cognisant of the object to the exclusion of itself, and ' again is at times cognisant both of itself and the object at once. Its general position is, beyond a doubt, merely this, that to constitute knowledge there must he an intelligent subject, and something for this intelligent subject to know — not that this intelligence must in every act of knowledge be cognisant of itself But this doctrine is equiva¬ lent to the counter-proposition just advanced, be¬ cause it declares that the cognisance of self is not ■ necessarily the condition and concomitant of all knowledge. 14. It is, however, rather from the conclusions It is generally reached by our popular psychology, than from any the starting- ... point of psy- expi’css Statement it contains, that we may gather chology, as ^ o tiiTstorUng. starting-point is our first counter-proposi- taphysfcs™®’ tioii* Supposing it to start from a denial of our THEOEY OF KNOWING. 91 first proposition, its subsequent conclusions are legi¬ timately reached, as will appear in the sequel. Supposing it to start from the admission of our first proposition, its illogical procedure would be alto¬ gether unparalleled. In justice, therefore, to our common psychology, we must suppose that it is grounded on our first counter-proposition, which, however, is the embodiment of a contradictory in¬ advertency of thought, by which all its subsequent proceedings are rendered untrue. The divarication of the two systems — our popular psychology on the one hand, founded on this counter-proposition, and exhibiting the erroneous results of ordinary think¬ ing ; and our strict metaphysics on the other hand, based on Proposition I., and presenting the results of the pure speculative reason — will begin to grow apparent in our second proposition. 15. To mark strongly the opposition between the propositions and the counter-propositions, it may be stated that the propositions declare what we do think, the counter -propositions declare what we think we think, but do not think : in other words, the propositions represent our real thinking, the counter-propositions our a'p'parent thinking. For example, the first counter-proposition affirms that we can know things without knowing ourselves ; but we only apparently do this — we only think that we know them without obeying the condition speci- , PROP. I. A mark of distinction between tlie propositions ■and the counter-pro¬ positions. 92 INSTITUTES OF METAPHYSIC. PROP. I. Prop. I. has some affinity to Pythago¬ rean doctrine of numbers. fied : in other words, we think, or rather think that we think, a contradiction ; for it is impossible really to think a contradiction. The proposition states what we really think and know as the condition of all our knowledge. 16. This first proposition expresses the principal law by which the unintelligible is converted into the intelligible. Let self be apprehended, and every¬ thing becomes (potentially) apprehensible or intelli¬ gible ; let self be unapprehended, and everything remains necessarily inapprehensible or unintelligible. Considered under this point of view, the nearest approach made to this proposition in ancient times was probably the Pythagorean speculation respecting number as the ground of all conceivability. In nature, 'per se, there is neither unity nor plurality — nothing is one thing, and nothing is many things ; .because there cannot be one thing unless by a men¬ tal synthesis of many things or parts ; and there cannot be many things or parts unless each of them is one thing : in other words, in nature, per se, there is nothing but absolute inconceivability. If she can place before us “ thing,” she cannot place before us a or one thing. So said Pythagoras. According to him, it is intelligence alone which contributes a to “ thing ” — gives unity, not certainly to plurality (for to .suppose plurality is to suppose unity already . given), but to that which is neither one nor many ; THEOEY OF KNOWING. 93 and thus converts the unintelligible into the intelli- . prop. gible — the world of nonsense into the world of. - intellect. 17. This doctrine has been strangely misunder¬ stood. Its expositors have usually thought that Misunder¬ standing as things are already numbered by nature either as to Pythago- ^ ^ rean doctrme. one or many, and that all that Pythagoras taught was that we re-number them when they come before - us ; as if such a truism as that could ever have fallen from the lips of a great thinker ; as if such a com¬ mon-place was even entitled to the name of an opinion. A theory which professes to explain how things become intelligible must surely not suppose . that they are intelligible before they become so. If a man undertakes to explain how water becomes ice, he must surely not suppose that it already is ice. He must date from some anterior condition of the water — its fluidity, for instance. Yet the Pytha¬ gorean theory of number as the ground of all Intel- . ligibility, is usually represented in this absurd light. Number, by which “ thing ” becomes intelligible, either as one or many, is believed to be admitted by this theory to be cleaving to “ thing ” even in its - unintelligible state. Were this so, the thing would not be unintelligible, and there would be no ex¬ planation of the conversion of the incogitable (the anoetic) into the cogitable (the noetic), the very point which the theory professes to explicate. 94 INSTITUTES OF METAPHYSIC. PROP. 1. Prop. I. a hifther gene¬ ralisation of the Pytlia- gorean law. Anticipa¬ tions of Prop. 1. by the pliilosophers . of Germany. The theory may be imperfect ; but it is one of the profoundest speculations of antiquity. The modern interpretation has emptied it of all signi¬ ficance. 18. The law laid down in Proposition I. is merely a higher generalisation and clearer expression of the Pythagorean law of number. Whatever is to be known must be known as one, or as many, or as both ; but whatever is to be known can be made one only by being referred to one self ; and whatever is to be known can be made many only when each of the plurals has been made one by being referred to one self ; and whatever is to be known can be made both one and many only by the same process being gone through, — that is to say, its unity and its plurality can only be effected by its reduction to the unity of self. 19. Passing over at present all intermediate approximations, we find anticipations of this first proposition in the writings of the philosophers of Germany. It puts in no claim to novelty, however novel may be the uses to which these Institutes apply it. Kant had glimpses of the truth ; but his remarks are confused in the extreme in regard to what he calls the unity (analytic and .synthetic) of consciousness. This is one of the few places in his works from which no meaning can be extracted. THEOKY OF KNOWING. 95 In his hands the principle answered no purpose at all. It died in the act of being born, and was buried under a mass of subordinate considerations before it can be said to have even breathed. Fichte got hold of it, and lost it — got hold of it, and lost it again, through a series of eight or ten different publications, in which the truth slips through his fingers when it seems just on the point of being turned to some account. Schelling promised mag¬ nificent operations in the heyday of his youth, on a basis very similar to that laid down in this first proposition. But the world has been waiting for the fulfilment of these promises, — for the fruits of that exuberant blossom, — during a period of more than fifty years. May its hopes be one day realised ! No man is fitter, if he would but take the pains, than this octogenarian seer, to show that Specula¬ tion is not all one “ barren heath.” * Hegel, — but who has ever yet uttered one intelligible word about Hegel ? Not any of his countrymen, — not any foreigner, — seldom even himself. With peaks, here and there, more lucent than the sun, his in¬ tervals are filled with a sea of darkness, un navigable by the aid of any compass, and an atmosphere, or rather vacuum, in which no human intellect can breathe. Hegel had better not be meddled with just at present. It is impossible to say to what extent this proposition coincides, or does not coin- * Schelling is now dead : he died in 1855. PROP. I. PKOP. I. 96 INSTITUTES OF METAPHYSIC. cide, with his opinions ; for whatever truth there may he in Hegel, it is certain that his meaning cannot be wrung from him by any amount of mere reading, any more than the whisky which is in bread — so at least we have been informed — can be extracted by squeezing the loaf into a tumbler. He requires to be distilled, as all philosophers do, more or less — but Hegel to an extent which is un¬ paralleled. A much less intellectual effort would be required to find out the truth for oneself than to understand his exposition of it. Hegel’s faults, however, and those of his predecessors subsequent to Kant, lie, certainly, not in the matter, but only in the manner of their compositions. Admirable in the substance and spirit and direction of their speculations, they are painfully deficient in the accomplishment of intelligible speech, and inhu¬ manly negligent of all the arts by which alone the processes and results of philosophical research can be recommended to the attention of mankind. PKOPOSITION IL THE OBJECT OF ALL KNOWLEDGE. The object of knowledge, whatever it may be, is always something more than what is naturally or usually regarded as the object. It always is, and must be, the object with the addition of oneself, — object plus subject, — thing, or thought, mecum. Self is an integral and essential part of every object of cognition. DEMONSTKATION. It has been already established as the condition of all knowledge, that a thing can be known only provided the intelligence which apprehends it knows itself at the same time. But if a thing can be known only provided oneself be known along with it, it fol¬ lows that the thing (or thought) and oneself together must, in every case, be the object, the true and com¬ plete object, of knowledge ; in other words, it follows G 98 INSTITUTES OF METAPHYSIC. PROP. II. Reason foi" printing “ itself-in- union-witli- whatever-it- apprehends ’ as one word. that that which we know always is and must be object plus subject, object cum alio, — thing or thought with an addition to it, — which addition is the me. Self, therefore, is an integral and essential part of every object of cognition. Or, again. Suppose a case in which a thing or a thought is apprehended without the me being ap¬ prehended along with it. This would contradict Proposition I., which has fixed the knowledge of self as the condition of all knowledge. But Propo¬ sition I. is established ; and therefore the me must in all cases form part of that which we know ; and the only object which any intelligence ever has, or ever can have any cognisance of is, itself-in-union- with-whatever-it-apprehends. OBSERVATIONS AND EXPLANATIONS. 1. By printing as one word the seven last words of the Demonstration, a higher degree of intelligi¬ bility seems to be secured for what is here laid down . as the universal object of knowledge, than might have been attained by printing these words as sepa¬ rate. Whether our position should be agreed with or not, it can scarcely be misunderstood. 2. By the object of knowledge, we are, of course, to understand the whole object of knowledge, what- THEOEY OF KNOWING. 99 ever that may he at any particular time. It is quite prop. possible for the mind to attend more to one part of - any given presentation than to another. The mind of knowledge is meant the does indeed usually attend most to that part of every ^ohou object of knowledge. presentation which is commonly called the thing. But the part so attended to is not the whole object ; it is not properly the object of our knowledge. It is only part of the object, the object being that part together with the other part of the presentation (self, namely, or the subject) which is usually less attended to, but which is necessary to complete every datum of cognition. In other words, the object, usually so called, is only part of the object of the mind, although it may be that part which is most attended to. The object, properly so called, is always the object with the addition of the subject, because this alone is the whole object of our appre¬ hension. That which is usually termed the object may be sometimes conveniently termed the objec¬ tive part of the object of knowledge, and that which • is usually called the subject may be sometimes con¬ veniently called the subjective part of the object of knowledge. But the ordinary distinction of subject and object in which they are contrasted as the know¬ ing and the known, and in which the subject is virtually denied to be any part of the object of our knowledge, is erroneous and contradictory, and has had a most mischievous effect on the growth and fortunes of philosophy. 100 INSTITUTES OF METAPHYSIC. PROP. II. Change which an at¬ tention to the condition of knowledge effects upon the object of knowledge. Further illus¬ trated by the speculative as distin¬ guished from the ordinary mode of enu¬ meration. 3. The ascertainment of the condition of know¬ ledge as fixed in Proposition I. necessarily effects a great change in our conception of the object of knowledge. This change is expressed in Proposi¬ tion IL But in our ordinary moods we regard the object of knowledge as something very different from what this proposition sets forth. Whatever it * may be, we regard it as that thing or thought with¬ out anything more — without that addition which we call the subject or the me. Heretofore our con¬ ception of the object was the conception of object sine alio ; now it is the conception of object cum alio, i. e. mecum. 4. The change which the condition of knowledge effects upon the object of knowledge may be further understood by con.sidering how very different the speculative enumeration of ourselves and things as based on Proposition II., is from the way in which we usually but erroneously enumerate them. We are cognisant of ourselves and of a number of sur¬ rounding objects. We look upon ourselves as nu¬ merically different from each of these things, just as each of them is numerically different from its neighbours. That is our ordinary way of counting. The speculative computation is quite different. Each of the things is always that thing me. So that supposing the things to be represented by the figures 1, 2, 3, 4, and ourselves by the figure 5, while fol- THEOEY OF KNOWING. 101 lowing the ordinary ciphering, we should count them prop. and ourselves as 1, 2, 8, 4, and 5 ; we should, fol- - lowing the speculative ciphering, count them and ourselves as 1 + 5, 2 + 5, 3 + 5, 4 + 5. And the result in each case equals me-in-union-with-the- thing, whatever it may be. Me-in-union-with-it — this synthesis ig always the total datum or object which I know. This 5 (illustrative of the ego) is the standard factor in every reckoning, is always part of the object apprehended, and is the neces¬ sary condition of its apprehension. If we consider the things 1, 2, 3, 4, as forming one complexus in that case, it is still 1 + 5 = me-in-union-with- things. 5. The second counter -proposition, embodying the inconsiderate result of ordinary thinking, and second coun- , . ter-proposi‘ brightening, by contrast, the truth of Proposition tion. II., may be laid down as follows : Second counter¬ proposition. — “ The object of knowledge is not, or, at any rate, need not be anything more than what is usually regarded as the object. It may be the object without the mind’s self, a thing (or a thought) sine me.” The inadvertency of ordinary thinking here pointed out, and corrected by Proposition II., is, that it overlooks a part of the object of know¬ ledge, and gives out a part as the whole ; just as, in counter-proposition I., it overlooks the condition of knowledge, and entertains an obscure notion that 102 INSTITUTES OF METAPHYSIC. PROP. II. It i."! false, because counter-pro¬ position I. is false. knowledge might take place without this condition being complied with. 6. This counter-proposition is grounded on a rock, if the first counter-proposition be true ; but without this stay it has no support whatever. If it were possible for an intelligent being to apprehend anything without complying with the condition which declares that he must apprehend himself as well, it would, of course, be possible for him to know an object without knowing anything more — i. e., without knowing himself along with it. But the first counter-proposition is false, because it contra¬ dicts Proposition I., which is a necessary and axio¬ matic truth of reason ; and, therefore, the second counter-proposition, which depends entirely upon the first counter-proposition, must likewise be set aside as false and contradictory. It is scarcely necessary to call attention to the circumstance, that the maintenance of the second counter-proposition is quite incompatible with the admission of Propo¬ sition I. Those who have conceded our starting- point cannot stand by the deliverance of ordinary thinking in regard to the object of knowledge, but must embrace the doctrine laid down in Propo¬ sition II. 7. The second counter-proposition is not only the expression of the ordinary notion of mankind in THEOEY OF KNOWING. 103 general with regard to the object of knowledge ; it prop. is, moreover, the exponent of the popular psycholo- - gical doctrine on this point. In the science of the tiie ordinary ° ^ notion, and human mind, subject and object are not contrasted as two things, both of which are known, and must opInion°MTo be known together ; they are not laid down as two iaiovvtedge.° things which, in their synthesis, constitute the only object which any intelligence can apprehend. They are contrasted simply as that which knows, and as that which is known — the former being the subject, and the latter the object. This is the second step in the procedure of our ordinary psychology. Just as, in its first position, it agrees with common think¬ ing in overlooking the condition of all knowledge, and starts from the doctrine set forth in the first counter-proposition ; so in its second position it also coincides with common opinion in overlooking a part of the object of knowledge, and in representing a mere part as the whole of that object. Here, again, however, its teaching is ambiguous. Our ordinary psychology does not expressly affirm that the object can be known without the subject or self being known ; but by laying all its emphasis on the consideration, that in the constitution of knowledge the subject is the factor which knows, while the object is the factor which is known, it virtually teaches that doctrine. At any rate, our subsequent articles will make it plain that the psychology now in vogue virtually embraces the second counter-pro- 104 INSTITUTES OF JVIETAPHYSIC. PROP. II. position, and denies by implication, if not directly, the truth of our second proposition, which declares, as a necessary truth of reason — as a conclusion which admits of no exception, and the reverse of which is nonsensical and contradictory — that the mind {i. e., every mind) can have no object of any kind, except an object bound up and apprehended along with itself. PKOPOSITION III. THE INSEPAEABILITY OF THE OBJECTIYE AND THE SUBJECTIVE. The objective part of the object of knowledge, though distinguishable, is not separable in cognition from the subjective part, or the ego ; but the objective part and the sub¬ jective part do together constitute the unit or minimum of knowledge. DEMONSTRATION. If the objective part of knowledge were separable in cognition from the ego or subjective part, it could be apprehended without the ego being apprehended along with it. But this has been proved by Propo¬ sition II. to be impossible. Therefore the objective part of the object of knowledge is not separable in cognition from the subjective part, or the ego. Again, The unit or minimum of cognition is such an amount of knowledge that if any constituent part of it be left out of account, the whole cognition of necessity disappears. But the objective 'plus the 106 INSTITUTES OF METAPHYSIC. PROP. III. Reasons for giving this proposition a prominent place in the system. subjective constitutes such a unit or minimum: because if the objective part be entirely removed from the object of our knowledge, and if the mind be left with no thing or thought before it, it can have no cognition — so if the subjective part, or itself, be entirely removed from the mind’s observation, the cognition equally disappears, to whatever extent we may suppose the mere objective part of the pre¬ sentation to be still before us. All cognisance of it is impossible by Proposition I. Therefore the ob¬ jective and the subjective do together constitute the unit or minimum of cognition. OBSERVATIONS AND EXPLANATIONS. 1. Although this proposition is rather a corollary of the second than a new and distinct proposition, still there are good reasons for assigning to it a formal and prominent position in the system. Its enunciation affords us an opportunity of explaining what is meant by inseparability in cognition, and by the unit or minimum of knowledge — two important but ill-understood points in philosophy. And fur¬ ther, it is to be suspected that, notwithstanding the clearness and certainty of Proposition II., doubts may still be entertained as to the inviolable unity in cognition of the objective and the subjective parts of our knowledge. Moreover, it may be doubted whether the popular delusion, which is largely THEOEY OF KNOWING. 107 shared in by psychology — namely, that subject and object are two units, and not merely one unit or - minimum of cognition — is combated and exploded in our second proposition in terms sufficiently ex¬ press. On these accounts it has appeared advisable to give to Proposition III. a distinct and leading place in the system. 2. Two things are properly said to be separable from each other in cognition, when they can be whatis , . meant by separated in such a way that the one of them can separability •' and insepara- be known or apprehended without the other. Thus a tree and a stone are separable from each other in cognition, because a tree can be apprehended with¬ out a stone being apprehended, and conversely But when two things cannot be separated in such a way that the one of them can be apprehended without the other, but only in such a way that the one is never confounded with the other — these two • things cannot with any propriety be said to be sepa¬ rable, but only to be distinguishable in cognition. This is the predicament in which subject and object, self and surrounding things, are placed. The two can at all times be intelligently distinguished from each other. They cannot at any time be intelligently sepa¬ rated from each other. They are clearly distinguish¬ able ; they are absolutely inseparable in cognition. 3. Both this and the second proposition affirm 108 INSTITUTES OP METAPHYSIC. PROP. III. A possible misapprehen¬ sion obviated. that self or the subject is an integral and essential part of every object of cognition. But the reader is requested to bear in mind that this does not mean that he is a part of that part of the objects of his cognition, which he calls chairs, and tables, and trees. It means quite the contrary. It means that he is not, and cannot be, a part of that part. The table before you, good reader, is only a part of the ‘ object of your cognition. You yourself are the other part. The true and total object of your mind is the table, or whatever else it may be, — and yourself. The latter part, therefore, cannot by any possibility be a part of the former part ; for to suppose that it can, would be equivalent to holding that a thing, instead of being what it was, was something which it was not. The two factors of cognition — the two constituents of every known object (to wit, the ego and the non-ego), are for ever contradistin¬ guished — for ever sundered by a fatal law which holds them everlastingly apart, and prevents either of them from being its opposite. But it is precisely this inexorable severance which also keeps them together as inseparably united in cognition. 4. Inseparability in cognition does not mean in¬ separability in space. The necessary laws of know¬ ledge admit of our apprehending things as separable, and as separate, in space from ourselves to any extent we please ; but they do not admit of our THEOEY OF KNOWING. 109 apprehending things as separate or as separable in prop. cognition from ourselves in any sense whatever. It - — is to he suspected that some misconception on this myTn cogni- point has been pretty general among the cultivators be confound- ^ , r ./ o £5 edwithinse- of philosophy, and that some who may have had a pai-abiuty in glimpse of the truth have shrunk from advocating, theTnternai! and even from contemplating, the inseparability in cognition of subject and object, from confounding this idea with the idea of their inseparability in space. Subject and object may be separated from each other in space more widely than the poles ; it is only in cognition that they are absolutely insepa¬ rable. They may very well be separated in space ; but space itself cannot be separated in cognition . from the subject — space is always known and thought of as my cognisance of space — therefore a separation in space has no effect whatever in bring¬ ing about a separation in cognition, of object from subject. The cultivators of philosophy just referred to seem to have been apprehensive lest, in denying the separability in cognition of subject and object, they might appear to be calling in question the ex¬ istence of external things, and thereby falling into ' idealism. As if any genuine idealism ever denied the existence of external things, — ever denied that these things were actually and bond fide external to us. Idealism never denied this : it only asks what is the meaning of “ external ” considered out of all relation to ‘‘ internal,” and it shows that, out of this 110 INSTITUTES OF METAPHYSIC. PROP. III. The unit of cognition explained. How it is determined. relation, the word “ external ” has, and can have, no meaning. 5. The unit or minimum of cognition is such an amount (and no more) of cognition as can be known. The knowable must mount up to a certain point before it can become the knowable least. In this respect the magnitude of the knowable is quite different from visible or ponderable magnitude. The visible or ponderable least cannot be deter¬ mined absolutely, because there is no necessary law of reason fixing it. It is a varying quantity contin¬ gent on the capacities of the seer or the weigher. But the knowable least is determined absolutely by an essential law of all intelligence ; it cannot be less than some thing or thought, with the addition of oneself. It cannot be less than object + subject ; because anything less than this is absolutely un¬ knowable by a necessary law of reason. No neces¬ sary law of knowledge fixes that the capacity of seeing or hearing or weighing shall not go below a certain limit : because wdth finer organs or with finer instruments a new minimum of sight or of sound or of weight might, for ever and ever, be re¬ vealed. But the capacity of knowing is sternly and everlastingly, and universally prohibited from going below a certain limit : it cannot descend to the apprehension of less than object -f subject. This, therefore, is the least, the ultimate that can be THEORY OF KNOWING. Ill known hy itself. Object (whatever the object may be, for this of course is not fixed by any necessary law - of reason) 'plus subject is the minimum scibile per se. 6. It is of importance to attend to the words hy itself or 'per se. Obiect plus subiect is not the importance ^ , , of f''® words knowable least or mmimum scibile without any “ qualification, because the objective part of know¬ ledge, which is, of course, less than both the objec¬ tive and subjective parts, can undoubtedly be known ; and the subjective part of knowledge (the ego), which is, of course, less than both the objective and subjective parts, can also be known. But object plus subject is the least that can be known by itself or per se, or in an isolated state ; because the objec¬ tive cannot be known without the subjective, or the subj ective without the obj ective. Hence obj ect plus subject is the minimum scibile per se. Suppose, for the sake of illustration, that a grain was the ponder¬ able least. To remove all ambiguity, it would be ne¬ cessary to add “ by itself.” Because the half-grain would also be ponderable — it would be ponderable along with the other half. But (on the supposition) it would not be ponderable by itself. Therefore to avoid all misconstruction, we should require to say that the grain was the ponderable least “ by itself.” So in regard to the unit or minimum of cognition. 7. It matters not how many elements or factors 112 INSTITUTES OF METAPHYSIC. PROP. III. The unit of cognition furtlier ex¬ plained. No essential but only an accidental difference between the minimum and the maximum of cognition. the unit or minimum of cognition may consist of : it matters not how clearly we may be able to dis¬ tinguish these elements from each other when the whole unit or minimum is before us. These circum¬ stances do not make the unit of cognition more than a unit or minimum. However numerous its ele¬ ments may be, the unit is still a mere unit, if the whole of them are required to make up one datum of knowledge. The only circumstance which could prove the unit of cognition, consisting of the two factors subject and object, to be more than a unit, would be the entire removal of either of its factors, and the continuance of the other factor by itself as a unit or minimum of cognition. But such a re¬ moval and such a continuance have been seen to be impossible. Therefore, subject and object, though capable of being discriminated as the two elements of our knowledge, are, in their duality, still a single unit of cognition ; because the one of them cannot be removed from any datum of knowledge without extinguishing the datum altogether. 8. The minimum scibile per se, consisting of sub¬ ject and object, is only accidentally but not essen¬ tially enlarged by augmenting the objective factor. Popularly considered, the universe plus me is greater than a grain of sand plus me. But this difference is altogether trivial, and of no account in philosophy. Let Y represent the subject, and X the object. So THEOEY OF EINOWING. 113 soon as Y apprehends Y + X the whole business of knowing is accomplished. The unit of know- - ledge, the minimum scibile per se, is constituted and compassed. We may add to this X as many other X's as we please. But that makes no difference in the eyes of reason. A million X’s plus Y is only accidentally but not essentially more than the mini¬ mum scibile per se. Although in the ordinary in¬ tercourse of life it may be convenient to regard the minimum and the maximum of cognition as diverse, • yet, speculatively considered, they are coincident. 9. Third counter -proposition. — “ The objective and the subjective parts of knowledge are separable Third eoun- • • m-i T T 1 • 1 • 1 ter-proposi- in cognition. The ego and that which is presented tiou. to it as not itself, or as the non-ego, are each of them a unit of cognition. Object and subject, oneself and the thiug with which one is engaged, are not one unit or minimum, but are two units or minima of knowledge. In other words, either of them can be known without the other being known.” 10. That this counter-proposition embodies the iuadvertency of popular thinking with regard to the it embodies an inadver- constitution of knowledge is undoubted. Every man tency of na- ® tural tliink- in his ordinary moments conceives that he can and does separate in cognition the thing which he knows from himself the knower of it. He looks upon it as somethiug which he can and does apprehend with- H 114 INSTITUTES OF METAPHYSIC. PROP. III. The psyclio- logical posi¬ tion more false and ambiguous than the na¬ tural inad¬ vertency. out apprehending himself. Hence he sees no diffi¬ culty whatever in separating it intelligently from him¬ self. Hence, too, he fancies that it is a unit of know¬ ledge, and that he is another unit of knowledge. This supposition, which contradicts the necessary laws of all reason, is no worse than an inadvertency on the part of common opinion, although it is one of the most inveterate of those natural oversights which metaphysic exists for the sole purpose of correcting. 11. As usual, the psychological teaching on this head is more ambiguous and more erroneous than the popular inadvertency. It certainly does not embrace Proposition III., and in so far as it dissents from the counter-proposition, it dissents only to fall into a deeper error. It sometimes embraces a middle alternative, in which the contradiction already in¬ volved in the third counter-proposition is compli¬ cated with an additional contradiction : something to this effect — object and subject, though insepar¬ able in cognition^ are nevertheless two separate units or minima of cognition, and not merely one ! It is quite unnecessary to argue against this proposition, so portentous is the twofold contradiction it in¬ volves. But it may be worth while to point out its origin. 12. The psychologist finds himself in a dilemma. He sees that if he expressly denies the inseparability THEOKY OP KNOWING. 115 iu cognition of the objective and the subjective ele- prop. ments of knowledge, he mistakes and misstates the - laws of cognition ; and he sees that if he admits that ^gfcL^error accounted object and subject form the unit or minimum of cog- for. nition, he deprives himself of the best or only argu¬ ment by which he may prove that each of them is a separate unit of existence. This consideration shocks him ; and he endeavours to salve the point by ad¬ mitting that subject and object are inseparable in cognition (this saves the phenomena in so far as the laws of knowledge are concerned), and by deny¬ ing that they constitute only a single unit of cogni¬ tion ; (this enables him to keep in his hands a valid argument for their duality of existence). But he retains it at a considerable expense — by swallowing a contradiction of his own brewing, which no palli¬ atives will ever enable him, or any one else, to digest. Such, we may be assured, is the secret history of the psychological deliverance on this point. The psychologist has not the firmness to stand to the truth, be the consequences what they may. 13. The common division of the sciences into the two leading categories, — the science of mind and Distinction of scisncG of the science of matter, — when regarded as more than mind and ' ° _ science of a mere verbal, and to a certain extent convenient matter cim- ' racterisea. distinction, is founded on the fallacy contained in . this psychological deliverance, and partakes of its 116 INSTITUTES OP METAPHYSIC. PROP. III. Invalidity of counter-pro¬ position III. Its origin, §§14.15,16, 17. fallaciousness. Indeed, to lay down the dualism of subject and object as complete and absolute, (that is, as an out-and-out duality which is not also a unity), which psychology not unfrequently does, is to extinguish every glimmering of the scientific reason ; for this implies that the dualism is laid down in cognition, as complete and absolute, which it can only be when intelligence can act in opposition to its own necessary and insuperable laws. In case it should be thought that psychology is rather unsparingly dealt with throughout this work, it may be here observed that it is only in so far as psychology ventures to treat of the fundamental question in regard to knowledge, and to intrude into the region of the prima philosophia, that her procedure is reprehended, and her insufficiency ex¬ posed. Within her own proper sphere — the investi¬ gation, namely, of such mental operations as me¬ mory, association of ideas, &c. — the performances of psychology are by no means to be slighted. 14. It comes very much to the same thing whether the ordinary psychological deliverance be identical with the opinion propounded in paragraph 11, or with the less illogical doctrine set forth in the third coun¬ ter-proposition. The invalidity of the latter has been already sufficiently exposed. It cannot pos¬ sibly be established, except upon the overthrow of Proposition I. A few remarks may be offered, not THEOEY OF KNOWING. 117 in refutation but in explanation of the origin of the third counter-proposition. - - 15. The circumstance that the object and subject of knowledge, the thing and the me, can be distin- Many things guished in cognition, seems to have led to the mis- ®!Ji®^harenot take embodied in this counter-proposition. People co^lttou.’ seem to have supposed that because these were dis¬ tinguishable, they were also separable in the mind. They, perhaps, fancy that the assertion that the ego and non-ego are inseparable in cognition, is equiva¬ lent to the assertion that thought confounds and identifies them with each other. Such a supposi¬ tion, if ever entertained, indicates merely a con¬ fusion of ideas. Many things are distinguishable in cognition, which it is yet impossible to know in separation from each other; and many things are inseparable in cognition, which it is yet impossible to confound or identify with each other. A stick has two ends. Its one end is quite distinguishable in cognition from the other end ; but it is abso¬ lutely inseparable in cognition from the other end. A stick with only one end is altogether incogitable. Again, — a stick has two ends. These are abso¬ lutely inseparable in cognition. But the one end is not the same as the other end. It is impossible for the mind to separate them ; it is equally im¬ possible for the mind to confound them. Of course, any given end of a stick can be cut away ; but 118 INSTITUTES OF METAPHYSIC. PROP. III. Illustrations applied to subject and object. Further illustration. not in such a manner as to leave it with only- one end, either for itself or for cognition. The end removed always is, and must be, replaced by a new end. 16. So in regard to subject and object. Any given subject may be removed from any given object, and any given object may be removed from any given subject. But the necessary law of every apprehended object is, that an ego or subject must be apprehended along with it ; and the necessary law of every apprehended subject is, that an object or thought, of one kind or other, must be appre¬ hended along with it. This is what the law of all intelligence necessitates ; in other words, both sub¬ ject and object are required to make up the unit or minimum of cognition. The object, by itself, is less than this unit or minimum, and the subject, by itself, is less than this unit or minimum; and, therefore, each of them, by itself, is absolutely in¬ apprehensible. Yet no one is ever so insane as to confound the objective part of his knowledge with the subjective part of it, or to mistake a thing for himself. 17. The circumference of a circle and its centre furnish another example of two elements of cogni¬ tion, which, though perfectly distinguishable, are alto¬ gether inseparable in the mind. The circumference THEORY OF KNOWING. 119 of a circle cannot be known without the centre being known, and the centre of a circle cannot be known without the circumference being known ; yet who ever supposes that the circumference is the centre, or the centre the circumference ? In the same way, why should our proposition lead people to infer that that part of the total object of know¬ ledge which is called the subject is that other part of it which is usually called the object, or that that part of it which is usually called the object is that other part of it which is called the subject? One would think that the distinction might be understood and kept clearly in view without running even into the smallest degree of confusion. At any rate, these remarks, taken along with the explanation given in the third paragraph of this article, may be sufficient to obviate the main misconceptions which have pre¬ vented our third proposition from occupying its rightful place in speculative science, and have led generally to the adoption of the third counter-pro¬ position. 18. All that this proposition contends for may be expressed very shortly and simply by saying — that it is impossible for a man to consider any of the ob¬ jects of his consciousness, whatever these may be, as at any time the objects of no consciousness — “ Quo semel est imbuta recens, servabit odorem Testa diu.” PROP. III. Short state¬ ment of wliat this proposi¬ tion contends for. 120 INSTITUTES OF METAPHYSIC. PROP. III. No opinion offered as to existence. Everything which I, or any intelligence, can appre¬ hend, is steeped primordially in me; and it ever retains, and ever must retain, the flavour of that original impregnation. Whether the object be what we call a thing or what we call a thought, it is equally impossible for any effort of thinking to grasp it as an intelligible thing or as an intelligible thought, when placed out of all connection with the ego. This is a necessary truth of all reason — an inviolable law of all knowledge — and we must just take it as we find it. 19. It is to be observed that under this article no opinion is expressed as to whether the subject and object of knowledge are two separate units of exist¬ ence. All that is at present affirmed is, that they are not two units, but only one unit, of cognition. To offer any opinion on the subject of Being, in that department of our science which treats merely of Knowing, would be as irrelevant as to start an anatomical doctrine when expounding the prin¬ ciples of astronomy. Let us find out what we can know, and cannot know, before we talk of what is, or is not. In the two next propositions, the abso¬ lutely unknowable is more particularly condescended upon. PROPOSITION IV. MATTER PER SE. Matter per se, the whole material universe by itself, is of necessity absolutely unknow¬ able. DEMONSTRATION. The whole material universe by itself, or per se, is a mere collection of objects without a subject or self. But it was proved in Proposition II. that the only objects which can possibly be known are objects plus a subject or self. Therefore the whole material universe by itself, or per se, is of necessity absolutely unknowable. Again. Object plus a subject is the minimum scihile per se (by Proposition III.) But the whole material universe, per se, being a mere collection of objects without a subject, is less than the minimum scihile per se. Therefore the whole material uni¬ verse being less than the minimum scihile per se — being less than the least that can be known by itself — is, of necessity, absolutely unknowable. 122 INSTITUTES OF METAPHYSIC. PROP. IV. Idealism and materialism have their roots here. Fourth coun¬ ter-proposi¬ tion. It expresses common opinion as to our know¬ ledge of mat¬ ter per ae. OBSERVATIONS AND EXPLANATIONS. 1. At this stage light begins to break in upon the great controversy between idealism and materialism. This is the point at which the controversy branches off from the main stem of speculation. Idealism, rightly understood, is founded on this fourth propo¬ sition, which again is founded on our third or second, which again are firmly rooted in our first. Mate¬ rialism — that is, the doctrine which advocates the absolute Being, the existence per se of matter — is founded on the following counter-proposition, which, it will be observed, rests upon the third or second counter-proposition, which again are supported by the first, and have no other stay when this ground is cut away from them. 2. Fourth counter-proposition. — “ The material universe per se is not of necessity absolutely un¬ knowable. It may be, and it is, the object of our knowledge.” 3. There can be no doubt that this counter-pro- position expresses the natural opinion of all man¬ kind respecting our knowledge of material things. In our ordinary moods we conceive that we know material things by themselves. When we gaze on rivers, woods, and mountains, or handle stocks and stones, we think that we are apprehending these THEOEY OP KNOWING. 123 things only^ and not them together with something . prop. else (to wit, ourselves), which we neither see nor - hear, and on which we cannot lay our hands. f 4. In such cases the oversight which we commit is not real and total ; it is only partial and apparent, oversight of and it is to be explained on the principles already parent-not expounded under Proposition I., — the law of fami- liarity, — and the circumstance that the me, though always a part, is never a sensible part of the object of our knowledge. However strongly the natural judgments of mankind may run in favour of the fourth counter-proposition, it is utterly incompatible with the necessary dictates of reason, which declare that an intelligent soul can never know anything except an intelligent soul apprehending whatever it apprehends. 5. Although here, as in the preceding instances, psychology speaks its opinion somewhat ambigu- Psychologi¬ cal opinion ously and reservedly as to our knowledge of matter »» ‘o p"*’ , ^ o knowledge of 'per se, still there can be little doubt that its doctrine to a large extent, and in so far as it presents a logical aspect, is virtually coincident with this fourth counter-proposition. Our ordinary psychology ad¬ vocates the existence of matter per se. And on what ground ? Surely on the ground that we know it to exist per se. The knowledge of its indepen¬ dent existence would undoubtedly be suflEicient evi- 124 INSTITUTES OF METAPHYSIC. PROP. IV. Psychologi¬ cal material¬ ism as found¬ ed on the four counter- propositions. dence of its independent existence. But failing this knowledge, it is difficult to understand on what ground its existence 'per se can be advocated or established. Of course, its existence per se is, at the present stage of the discussion, neither admitted nor denied. But this much may be said, that it would be a monstrous fallacy — and one which we would very unwillingly charge our popular psycho¬ logy with — to conclude that matter which was only known, and could only be known to exist cum alio, or not independently, therefore existed per se, or independently. That, assuredly, would be a non- sequitur. We must therefore hold that the teach¬ ing of psychology is, in its scope and tendency at least, identical with the fourth counter-proposition, which declares (in opposition to a strict demonstrated truth) that matter yier se is, or can be, known. 6. Observe, in further corroboration of what has been announced as the psychological doctrine, what a consistent scheme of materialism arises out of our four counter-propositions. Firstly, It is not neces¬ sary that we should know ourselves in order to know other things. Secondly, Any object, therefore, may be known by us, without ourselves being known along with it. Thirdly, Therefore the mere objec¬ tive part of our knowledge is, or may be, a unit of cognition. Fourthly^ Therefore matter per se, which is the mere objective part of our knowledge, is or THEOEY OF KNOWING. 125 may be known by us. Fifthly, Therefore matter per se exists. The logic of that sorites which, we believe, contains the sole psychological argument in favour of the existence of matter per se, is impreg¬ nable. Unfortunately the starting-point and the three subsequent counter-propositions are false and contradictory, and are therefore altogether incom¬ petent to support the conclusion — however true that conclusion may be in itself 7. The fallacy of this argument will be still more apparent, and the grounds of idealism will be further opened up, if we set against it the first four propo¬ sitions of the system. Firstly, It is necessary that self should always be known, if anything is to be known. Secondly, Therefore no object can be known without self being known. Thirdly, Therefore the mere objective part of knowledge is always less than the unit or minimum of cognition. Fourthly, There¬ fore matter per se, which is the mere objective part of our knowledge and less than the unit of cog¬ nition, cannot by any possibility be known by us. Fifthly, Therefore no argument in favour of the exist¬ ence of matter per se can be deduced from our know¬ ledge of matter per se — because we have, and can have, no such knowledge. Of course, no conclusion is deducible from these premises to the effect that matter per se does not exist. All that the premises do is to cut away the grounds of materialism, and PROP. IV. Fallacy of materialism. Possibility of idealism as founded on four proposi¬ tions. 126 INSTITUTES OF METAPHYSIC. PROP. IV. A prelimi¬ nary question prejudged by materialist and by idealist. afford a presumption in favour of the possibility of some kind of idealism. 8. Both the materialist and the idealist have tacitly prejudged an important preliminary question in their discussions respecting the existence of mat¬ ter. The question is this — Is there, or is there not, any necessary and invincible law of knowledge and of reason which prevents matter per se from being known ? The materialist, prejudging this question in the negative, silently decides that there is nothing in the nature of intelligence, or in the constitution and essence of knowledge, to prevent matter per se from being known. Holding, therefore, the know¬ ledge of matter per se to be possible, and surrounded by the glories of a wonderful creation, he very natu¬ rally concludes that this knowledge is actual ; and holding this knowledge to be actual, he cannot but conclude that matter per se exists. The inference from knowledge to existence is always legitimate. It is not surprising, therefore, that he should be bewildered and irritated by the speculations of thnse who have called in question the existence of matter per se. But the idealist also has his grounds of justification. He has silently decided this prelimi¬ nary question in the affirmative. He has seen that in the very nature of reason, in the very constitu¬ tion of knowledge, there is a necessary and insuper¬ able law which renders any apprehension of matter THEOEY OF KNOWING. 127 per se a contradiction and an impossibility. Hence his doubts, and even his denial, of the existence of matter per se are not altogether so unreasonable as they are liable to appear to those who are ignorant of the answer which he has tacitly and only half- consciously returned to the preliminary question referred to. 9. This preliminary question has been prejudged — that is, has been settled in opposite ways without examination — by the materialist and by the idealist, owing to their having proceeded to ontology (the science of Being) before they had proposed and exhausted the problems of a rigorous and demon¬ strated epistemology (the science of Knowing). Owing to this reversal of the right method of philo¬ sophy, while the materialist has tacitly returned a wrong answer to this preliminary question, the ideal¬ ist has obtained only a glimpse of the truth. The materialist rejects the law with an emphasis all the more strong, because the question which inquires about it can scarcely be said to have occurred to him. He never even dreams that there is an invin¬ cible law of reason which prevents all intelligence from knowing matter per se. He has silently de¬ cided in his own mind that there is no such law ; and hence he has no difficulty in coming to a de¬ cision in favour of independent material existence. On the other hand, the idealist has certainly got . PROP. IV. Cause oi this preci¬ pitate judg¬ ment. Its evil conse¬ quences. 128 INSTITUTES OF METAPHYSIC. PROP. IV. How Prop. IV. decides this prelimi¬ nary ques¬ tion. How Counter¬ prop. IV. decides it. Symbols il¬ lustrative of the position maintained by the Insti¬ tutes. some perception of this law ; but having passed on to the question of existence before he had thoroughly ascertained the laws of knowledge, and in particular before he had mastered the condition of all know¬ ledge, as laid down in Proposition I., he has reached an ontological conclusion affirming the non-absolute existence of matter, which, however true it may be, is ambiguous, precipitate, and ill-matured, — and in¬ deed not intelligible ; for nothing which is ambi¬ guous is intelligible. 10. It is obvious that this system decides this pre¬ liminary question in the affirmative, declaring un¬ equivocally that there is a necessary law which prevents all intelligence from knowing matter ^er se, — just as the counter-proposition decides it in the negative, declaring that there is none. The affirma¬ tive answer follows by a very short remove from Proposition I., in which the primary condition of all knowing is fixed. The negative answer is based on a denial of Proposition I., — in other words, on the rejection of a necessary truth of reason. 11. A few more explanations may be offered. Attention to the following symbols will enable the reader to understand exactly the position advocated by these Institutes in regard to our knowledge of material things, as contrasted with the position occu¬ pied by ordinary thinking, and also maintained by THEORY OF KNOWING. 129 psychology. Let X represent the material universe, prop- and let Y represent self or the subject : the law is - that Y can apprehend X only provided, and when, it apprehends Y as well. (It shall be proved farther on* that Y can conceive or think of X only provided, and when, it conceives Y as well ; meanwhile this is assumed.) So that what Y apprehends, or thinks of, is never X fer se, but always is, and must be, X plus Y. The synthesis of X and Y — that is, the only universe which the laws of knowledge permit Y (i. e. any intelligence) to know or conceive — this is the thesis maintained in these Institutes. 12. Let this position be now contrasted with the ordinary and psychological opinion. Let X, as xhe^same before, represent the material universe, and let Y illustrative of represent self or the subject ; the law is that Y can position, apprehend X only provided, and when, it is present to X. Here nothing is said about the necessity of Y apprehending Y, or itself, whenever it appre¬ hends X ; but all that is held to be necessary is that Y should be present to X whenever it appre¬ hends X. But this position is entirely different from that set forth in the preceding paragraph, and it leads to a directly opposite conclusion ; because if all that is required to enable Y to apprehend X be that Y should he present to X, there is nothing to prevent Y from being cognisant of X per se : * Propositions XI., XII. I 130 INSTITUTES OF METAPHYSIC. PROP, indeed, in that case, it must be cognisant of X per - se ; because, not being cognisant of Y, or itself, it must he cognisant of X without Y ; but X without Y is X per se. So that the psychological position, which contends merely for the presence of Y along with X as the condition on which Y may know X, but not for the cognisance by Y of its own presence along with X, leaves the knowledge of X per se not only possible, but necessary. On this basis, which is occupied by ordinary thinking as well as by psychological science, our knowledge of matter per se may very well be vindicated. 13. A very different conclusion flows from the Diflferent initial principle on which this work is founded. Our conclusions ... *11-^7- i -xr from the two positiou IS uot Simply that i must be present to X positions. ^ ^ . r in order to be cognisant of X : nothing can come of such a truism as that ; it is barren as a cinder. Our position is that Y must, moreover, be cognisant of Y or itself, in order to be cognisant of X, and that Y can apprehend X only when it also appre¬ hends Y. That seed bears fruit, which, whether acceptable or not, is at any rate legitimately raised, because it leads at once to the conclusion that all knowledge of X per se — that is, of X without any Y being known along with it — is altogether im¬ possible. 1 4. Lest it should be supposed that this conclusion THEOEY OF KNOWING. 131 is also deducible from the other position, a few words prop. may be added to show that this is not the case. - Suppose we merely affirm, with ps3^chology, that Y fel-uierex^- must always he along with X in order that X may be apprehended ; there would be nothing in that position to prevent Xjper se from being apprehended — nothing to support the conclusion that all know¬ ledge of X per se is impossible; the only inference (which, however, would be a mere re-statement of the position) would be that wherever X was known there must always be a Y present to know it. That is undoubted ; but this inference is very far from being equivalent to the conclusion that X per se cannot be known. X per se can be known, if Y can know it without being cognisant of itself at the same time ; for to say that X per se is known, simply means that X is known without Y being known along with it. But the conclusion that X per se cannot be known, is irresistible on the other premises ; because if Y must not only be along with X in order to know X, but must also be known along with X in order to know X, it is obviously impossible that X per se can be known, or that Y can know X without knowing Y — i.e., itself — at the same time. 15. Another point of essential difference between the views maintained in this system and the ordi¬ nary psychological opinions is this : It is possible 132 INSTITUTES OF METAPHYSIC. PROP, that psychology may assent to the position that Y - (to continue these symbols) cannot know X without point of dif- know'ine; Y, or itself, as well. It is indeed by no ference be- . . . . tween this moans Certain that psychology distinctly disavows system and '' psychology. principle (so vacillating is her procedure), al¬ though it is quite inconsistent with the general scope of her instructions, and with the conclusions at which she arrives. But supposing it to be con¬ ceded, psychology may still contend that this posi¬ tion does not prove X per se to be absolutely and universally unknowable. She may argue — indeed does argue — that although X per se (matter by it¬ self) may not be known by us (the human Y), it may, nevertheless, be known by other intelli¬ gences, actual or possible ; that is, by some Y dif¬ ferently constituted from us. Psychology thus attri¬ butes our incompetency to know matter per se to some peculiarity or special limitation in our faculties of cognition. Not to speak of lesser men, even Kant has fallen into this mistake. But a very moderate degree of reflection might have convinced them that we are prevented from knowing matter per se by no such cause. The imperfection or limitation of our •faculties can only prevent us from knowing how, or under what modes of apprehension different from ours, matter may be known by other intelligences, supposing such to exist. Matter per se is unknow¬ able by us on a very different account. It is un¬ knowable, not on account of any special disability THEOEY OP KNOWING. 133 under which we may be supposed to labour (and surely we have a sufficiency of imperfections with¬ out increasing their number through a miscalcula¬ tion), but in virtue of a law binding upon all intelli¬ gence. The law is that all intelligence (every Y, actual or possible) must know itself along with whatever it is cognisant of, (Prop. I.) Therefore matter per se cannot possibly be known by any intelligence, be its constitution what it may ; for every intelligence in knowing matter must know itself as well. X per se is thus fixed as absolutely unknowable all round, — all round the circle of in¬ telligence ; and here, at least, we lie under no special disadvantage, if disadvantage it be. “ Know me,” says X per se to one Y. — “ I cannot,” says that Y, “ for I must know myself as well.” “ Know me,” says X per se to another and differently constituted Y. — “ I cannot,” says this other Y, for I must know myself as well.” “ Know me,” says X per se to a third and again differently constituted Y. — “ I cannot do it,” says this third Y, “for I am under the necessity of knowing myself along with you :” and so on, round the whole circle. Thus X per se meets with a rebuff from every quarter — cannot get known on any terms by any intelligence. Indepen¬ dent matter is thus shut out from all cognition by a necessary law of all reason. The primary condition of all knowledge closes the door in its face. So much for the psychological averment that matter PROP. iv. 134 INSTITUTES OF METAPHYSIC, PROP, per se may be known by other intelligences, though - perhaps not known by us. Psychology professes to deal not with necessary, but only with contingent, truth — and the mischievous error now under con¬ sideration (for error it is, inasmuch as it attributes our incompetency to a wrong cause, — and how mis¬ chievous it is will afterwards appear in the agnoi- ology) is the offspring of that timidity. These Institutes deal only with necessary truth ; and one of the advantages of this restriction is, that while it saves us from the mistake alluded to, it enables us to prove, as an easy and legitimate deduction from their first principle, that all cognisance of the ma¬ terial universe per se is not only impossible to us, but that it is universally impossible. This conclu¬ sion, which here is only in the bud, shows blossom in the agnoiology, and bears fruit in the ontology. 16. By these considerations matter per se is re- Matterperw duced to the predicament of a contradiction: it is reduced to _ _ dictory*"^^' simply inconceivable by us, but the abso¬ lutely inconceivable in itself. This reduction, the importance of which will be apparent by-and-by, could not have been effected upon any principle of psychological strategy. It is a manoeuvre competent only to the dialectic of necessary truth. “ Matter per se” says psychology, “may not be known by us, but what of that ? If it can be possibly known by any intelligence, it is not to be laid down as the THEOKY OP KNOWING. 135 contradictory.” True, if it can be known by any intelligence. But wbat if it can not be known by any intelligence, actual or possible ? In that case it undoubtedly becomes the contradictory. For what is a contradiction but that which cannot be known or conceived on any terms by any possible intelli¬ gence ? Whatever is of this character is a contra¬ dictory thing. Why is a two-sided triangle a con¬ tradiction ? Just because the laws of all thinking prevent such a figure from being known or con¬ ceived. Why is matter per se a contradiction ? For precisely the same reason. The laws of all thinking intercept it on the way to cognition, and compel something else to be known in its place ; to wit, matter cum alioj i.e. mecum. That the one of these contradictions should appear more palpable than the other, is a mere accident of words. Matter 'per se is thus cut off from all means of escape from the category of the contradictory, inasmuch as a loophole is to be found only in the supposition that, if one kind of intelligence cannot be cognisant of it, another kind may. Psychology endeavours to open that outlet : our first proposition shuts it ; so that matter per se must just submit to the doom which consigns it to the limbo of the contradictory. 17. Perhaps it may be thought that the contradic¬ tion here spoken of does not attach to matter per se, but only to our knowledge of it; and that it amounts PROP. IV. 136 INSTITUTES OF METAPHYSIC, PROP, to no more than this, that things cannot be known - unless they are presented in some way or other to diction at- an intelligent mind. A few remarks, therefore, taches not only to our must be made to obviate this natural but very serious knowledge of •' matterperse, and to show that the contradic¬ tion in question affects not merely knowledge, but its objects. To speak first of merely contradictory know¬ ledge : Suppose it to be laid down as a necessary truth of reason, that a man can be cognisant of things only when they are present, either really or ideally, to his consciousness ; that position would merely fix all knowledge as contradictory in which the things to be known were not presented to the mind. It would leave the things themselves un¬ affected. They would not be contradictory; they • would still be possible, though not actual, objects of knowledge. Matter per se (supposing it cognisable) would not be itself contradictory because the cog¬ nisance of it, except upon certain conditions, was contradictory. It would be rather hard upon matter per se to visit it with the consequences of our refusal to comply with the conditions of cognition, or to suppose that it was an absurdity, because we hap¬ pened to be asleep, or occupied with something else. Here, then, the contradiction attaches only to the knowledge of matter per se. That is absurd and impossible, unless the conditions requisite to its at¬ tainment are complied with. The thing itself is un¬ touched ; it remains unknown, but not unknowable. THEOEY OF KNOWING. 137 18. But the case is very different in regard to the contradiction at present under consideration. These ... But to mat Institutes differ entirely from psychology in their it doctrine as to the primary condition of all know¬ ledge. They contend, not simply that a man can know things only when they are presented to his mind, but that he can know them when only he himself is presented to his mind along with them. This position, in fixing the knowledge of self as the condition of all knowledge, fixes self, moreover, as an integral and essential part of every object of cognition (see Prop. III., obs. 3). When that integral part, therefore, is supposed to be withdrawn, as it is in the case of matter per se, the inevitable effect is, that the remaining part of the object of cognition — to wit, matter per se — lapses into a con¬ tradiction. It becomes a mere absurdity. It is not simply unknown, it is absolutely unknowable ; be¬ cause, upon the terms of this system, the only object knowable by any mind is an object made up of a thing (the element called non-ego) and a mind or self (the element called ego). Here, then, the con¬ tradiction besieges not merely the knowledge of the - thing, but the thing itself. The difference between the two contradictions may be illustrated in this way. The cognisance of a circle is contradictory, unless that figure be presented, either really or ideally, to the mind. This contradiction, however, is limited exclusively to the cognisance ; it does not PROP. IV. 138 INSTITUTES OF METAPHYSIC. extend to the circle. A mere contradiction of this kind would leave matter se altogether unaffected. But the cognisance of a centreless circle is not only a contradictory cognisance ; the object of it is, more¬ over, a contradictory object A centreless circle is absolutely incogitable in itself The contradiction which attaches to matter ‘per se is of this character. Matter se is a contradictory thing, just as much as a circle without a centre is a contradictory thing. is con-^ tradictory, because it lacks an element (to wit, the centre) which is essential to the constitution not only of every known, but of every knowable circle ; and in like manner, matter per se is contradictory, because it wants the element (to wit, the me) which is essential to the constitution not only of every known, but of every knowable thing, (Prop. II.) It is thus certain that matter per se is a contradictory thing, and that the contradiction (as these remarks have been introduced to show) cleaves not only to the cognition but to its object. A thing which can be known or conceived only when something else is known or conceived along with it, must surely present a contradiction to the mind when¬ ever an attempt is made to know or conceive it by itself. In the case of the centreless circle, the object . 19. This position being secured— the reduction, namely, of matter per se to a contradiction — the THEOEY OF KNOWING. 139 first triumph of philosophy is achieved. This opera- tion turns the flank of every hostile scheme, and - •111* T •! -Advantage of breaks down the most formidable impediment with tins reduc- which speculation has to struggle. Her course is now comparatively smooth. One advantage of this reduction is that it brings before us, in a new light (and the more lights it can be viewed in the better), the leading question of the epistemology. That problem is. What is the essential condition and con- . stituent of all knowledge ; or what is that which ^enters, and must enter, into the composition of every object of knowledge ? But another form of the question might be, What is every object of know- • ledge without this essential constituent ? And the answer is, that it must be the contradictory ; be¬ cause it is obvious that if the objects of knowledge be deprived of the necessary element which makes them objects of knowledge, the remaining part must . be universally unknowable and inconceivable — in other words, contradictory. But the next question is. What is this incogitable remainder, this contra- - dictory caput mortuum ? For it is idle to talk of this contradictory element unless we are able to say what it is ; and the answer is, that it is matter per se, or, carried to a higher generality, objects without any subject. This is the contradictory element in all knowledge — the contradiction which intellect has to overcome — the wastes and wilds of absurdity which are given over to the reclaiming processes of 140 INSTITUTES OP METAPHYSIC. PROP. IV. Importance of finding the contradic¬ tory. reason, and which have to be redeemed into cog¬ nition. 20. The next question is, How is this redemption effected ? How does the contradictory cease to be contradictory ; how does the incogitable become cogitable ; how does the absolutely unknowable be¬ come known ? That was the form in which the problem of philosophy usually presented itself, although not very clearly, to the thinkers of anti¬ quity. That was the form under which Plato viewed it, when he described philosophy as the means by which the human soul was converted from ignorance to knowledge. His description would have been more exact had he said that philosophy was not so much this conversion itself, as an explanation of the process by which the con¬ version was effected — in other words, was expla¬ natory of the way in which the contradictory ele¬ ment contained in every object of cognition was over¬ come, not by philosophers only, but by all mankind, — the only difference being that the philosopher overcame the contradiction, and knew the process how, while the common man equally overcame it, without being conscious of the means which he employed. But whatever the explanation may be — whether by calling attention, as Plato did, to his “ ideas,” or, as this system does, to the “ me,” as the redeeming element — it is obvious that the question THEOEY OF KNOWING. 141 as to the conversion of the contradictory cannot be distinctly answered until we have found our contra- - dictory, our incogitable, our unknowable. Until that is done, we can have nothing definite to work upon. Hence the importance of reducing matter 'per se to a contradiction. This reduction is equivalent to a finding of the contradictory ; and we have now something under our hands. We can now exhibit the process of conversion by which the unintelligible is translated into the intelligible. This exhibition is indeed the business of every part of the first section of this work. But the explanation could scarcely have proceeded, had the unintelligible or contradictory element of all cognition remained unfound. 21. In speaking thus of the finding of the contra¬ dictory, we are very far from insinuating that the in what . , sense the con- contradictory can be known or conceived. It can be tradictory is conceived only as the absolutely inconceivable. To ' find it as this is all that is necessary for the purposes of rational truth. In one sense, and when properly explained, nothing is easier than to conceive the contradictory. Conceive the one end of a stick absolutely removed, and the other end alone remain¬ ing, and you have a conception of something contra¬ dictory. “ I cannot conceive that,"' the reader will say. True, in one sense you cannot conceive it, but in another sense you can conceive it distinctly, — 142 INSTITUTES OF METAPHYSIC. PROP. IV. you can conceive it as that which neither you nor any other intelligence can conceive. This is the whole amount of the conceivability which is claimed for matter per se. It is to be conceived only as that which no intellect can conceive, inasmuch as all in¬ tellect, by its very nature as intellect, can conceive it only cum alio. 22. Does this contradictory nondescript exist ? Matter per w The answer to that question had better be allowed is not a non- _ _ ^ _ entity. ^0 ripen a little longer. Philosophers, ere now, have got into . trouble by plucking it prematurely. One point the reader may make himself quite easy about. This system is as far as any system can be from maintaining that matter per se is a nonentity — a blank. All blanks, all nonentities, require to be supplemented by a “ me” before they can be cogit¬ able, just as much as all things or entities require to be thus supplemented. But moXtex per se is, by its very terms, that which is unsupplemented by any “ me therefore it, certainly, is not to be conceived as a nonentity. If idealism be a system which holds that matter per se is nothing, we forswear and de¬ nounce idealism. True idealism, however, never maintained any such absurd thesis. But does not true idealism reduce every thing in the universe to a mere phenomenon of consciousness? Suppose it does, — does it not also reduce every nothing in • the universe to a mere phenomenon of conscious- THEOEY OF KNOWING. 143 ness? The materialist supposes that, according to idealism, when a loaf of bread ceases to be a pheno¬ menon of consciousness, and is locked away in a dark closet, it must turn into nothing. He might as well fancy that, according to idealism, it must turn into cheese. Idealism does not hold that when a thing ceases altogether to be a phenomenon of consciousness, it becomes another phenomenon of consciousness, as this supposition would imply. No — in the absence of all consciousness, the loaf, or whatever it may be, lapses, not into nothing, but into- the contradictory. It becomes the absolutely inco- gitable — a surd — from which condition it can be redeemed only when some consciousness of it is either known or conceived. But the question is, — Is our reason competent to conceive the abstraction of all consciousness from this, or from any other, object in the universe ? This competency may very well be doubted : perhaps hereafter good grounds may appear for denying it. PROP. IV. PEOPOSITION V. MATIEE AND ITS QUALITIES PEE SE. All the qualities of matter hy themselves are, of necessity, absolutely unknowable. DEMONSTKATION. The qualities of matter by themselves are, equally with matter itself, an objective presentment without a subject. But it has been proved by Proposition II. that no objective can be known without a subjective or self being known along with it. Therefore, all the qualities of matter, by themselves, are absolutely unknowable. OBSEEVATIONS AND EXPLANATIONS. 1. In dealing with the question respecting our Why Pro- knowledge of material existence, psychology vacil- position V. is , . . . . , introduced, lates between two opinions. At times it sides with natural thinking, and aflEirms, in the terms set forth THEOKY OF KNOWING. 145 in Counter-proposition IV., that matter jper se is known ; and at other times it advocates a doctrine for which natural thinking is certainly in no way responsible — the opinion, namely, that we are cog¬ nisant only of the material qualities per se. The first of these opinions is set at rest by Proposition IV., which proves that a contradiction is involved in the supposition that material things, by and in them¬ selves, or without a mind being known along with them, can be known by any intelligence. The pro¬ position now before us is introduced chiefly for the purpose of meeting and correcting the second of these opinions, to which a distinct expression is given in the following counter-proposition. It will be at once obvious that this counter-proposition involves a contradiction just as much as Counter-proposition IV. does ; because it asserts that certain qualities of matter can be known without the “ me'’ being known along with them. But it has been thought neces¬ sary to bring forward this doctrine, and to contro¬ vert it expressly, because it is one which is generally considered as placed beyond the reach of controversy by means of a psychological distinction of some celebrity, the value of which shall now be critically tested. 2. Fifth Counter-proposition. — “ Although matter per se is not known, certain of its qualities are knowable, and are known per se, or by themselves.” K PKOP. V. Fifth coun¬ ter-proposi¬ tion. PBOP. V. Distinction between the primary and the secondary qualities of matter. Character of the secon¬ dary qua¬ lities. 146 INSTITUTES OF METAPHYSIC. 3. The qualities here referred to are those which our psychologists call the prfmarr/ qualities of matter. It is here, then, that the distinction between the primary and secondary qualities comes under review. This distinction has played a conspicuous, though neither a very edifying nor a very successful part in philosophy. It is of some importance, however, in a historical point of view, as forming a chapter in the controversy between idealism and materialism ; and therefore a short account of it shall now be given — if for no other purpose than that of showing how completely it has failed to answer its purpose, and how much it tends to keep up mistaken and contradictory notions in regard to the laws of knowledge. 4. It is not necessary to present a complete enu¬ meration of the primary and secondary qualities, or to go into any detailed explanation of their nature. A general view of the respective characters of the two classes will be sufficient to enable the reader to understand the distinction, and the use to which it has been turned by psychology. Among the secondary qualities are classed heat and cold, colour and sound, taste and odour. It will be observed that these words are of ambiguous or twofold im¬ port. They signify both certain sensations in us, and certain inferred qualities in things by which these sensations are induced. Thus the words THEORY OF KNOWING. 147 “heat” and “colour” express the subjective affec¬ tions which we call by these names ; and they also express certain occult material causes which are sup¬ posed to excite them. When we speak of heat in our hand, we mean something very different from what we mean when we talk of heat in the fire. In the one case we mean a sensation ; in the other case we mean some inferred property in the fire which occasions that sensation. And so in regard to the other secondary qualities. The words which express them are generally ambiguous, and it is only from the context, or from the relation in which they are spoken, that we are able to determine in which of the two senses (objective or subjective) the terms are employed. In this respect the secondary qualities are said to differ from the primary. But the im¬ portant circumstance, in the estimation of psycho¬ logy, and to which our attention is directed in con¬ sidering this distinction, is, that we have no distinct and assured knowledge of the secondary qualities as they are in themselves, inasmuch as they must be, in their own nature, very different from the sensations to which they give rise. The sensations are all that we are cognisant of : and thus our knowledge of material things, and even the evidence of their existence, would be extremely imperfect, doubtful, and confused, had we no other sources of information respecting them than the subjective affections which their occult qualities are supposed to induce, and no PROP. V. 148 INSTITUTES OP METAPHYSIC. PROP. V, Character of tlie primary qualities. other notion of them than the notion of their secon¬ dary qualities. 5. The primary qualities are said to be of a dif¬ ferent character, and to supply the information and the evidence which are wanted. These are princi¬ pally extension, figure, and solidity. We are cog¬ nisant of these qualities, not as mere sensations in ourselves, like heat and cold, colour and sound, but as they exist and show themselves in external things. Heat and cold, colour and sound — in a word, all our sentient modifications — may be so increased in degree as to become unbearable. But our percep¬ tions of the extension and figure and incompres¬ sibility of material objects cannot be thus augmented in intensity. By this circumstance our perceptions are distinguished from our sensations : the latter are susceptible of different degrees of vivacity ; some amount of bodily pleasure or pain enters into their composition. Not so in the case of our perceptions. Their degree is always the same ; they involve no organic pleasure, or the reverse. It is through our perceptions, and not through our sensations, that we are made acquainted with the primary qualities of matter — that is, with the extension, the figure, and the solidity of external objects. It is further alleged that the terms which indicate the primary qualities are not ambiguous, but have only one signification. But the important circumstance to which psychology THEOEY OF KNOWING. 149 refers us in its exposition of the primary qualities, is prop. this, that we have a distinct and direct knowledge of . - them as they exist, not in our minds, but in the things which are made known to us through their means. We have a clear apprehension of the objec¬ tive presence of extension, figure, and solidity, as the properties of external things. In this respect the primary differ from the secondary qualities, of whose objective existence we have no distinct knowledge . or conception. Such is the psychological distinction between the primary and the secondary qualities of matter, and between sensation and perception. Sensation is the faculty which doubtfully and obscurely indicates - the objective existence of the secondary qualities ; while perception is the faculty which announces clearly and unmistakably the objective existence of • the primary. Sensation, it is said, reveals the sen¬ tient subject ; perception the sensible and objective world. 6. In itself, and under certain limitations, this distinction is harmless. Although the analysis is Defects of , , this distinc- 01 no importance, and answers no purpose, there is ‘ion. nothing positively erroneous in the affirmation that the primary qualities of matter are phenomena of a different order from the secondary ; that the latter are obscure and sensational ; that the former are clear and perceptible. Psychology might, indeed. 150 INSTITUTES OF METAPHYSIC. PROP. V. find it difficult to show that the words which ex¬ press the primary qualities are one whit less ambi¬ guous than those which denote the secondary. Are not the words “ extension,” “ figure,” and “ soli¬ dity,” employed both to express these qualities as they are in themselves, and also to express our perceptions of them ? Is not this precisely the same ambiguity which the terms significant of the secondary qualities present? Is psychology able to explain, or is any human being competent to know what these qualities are, apart from his perceptions of them ? It is always our perceptions of the pri¬ mary qualities, and not these qualities themselves, which come before the mind, just as it is always our sensations resulting from the secondary quali¬ ties, and not the secondary qualities themselves, that we are cognisant of. The terms, therefore, which express the primary qualities, are just as ambiguous as those which indicate the secondary ; and the attempt to remove this ambiguity, by means of the distinction in question, instead of removing, serves only to disguise it. The attempt to establish a clear doctrine of perceptive know¬ ledge, by distinguishing the two classes of quali¬ ties, establishes only an obscure and misleading one. 7. But the error lies not so much in this dis¬ tinction itself as in its application. In the hands THEORY OF KNOWING. 151 of psychology it runs into a palpable contradiction prop. — into the contradiction to which expression is - given in this fifth counter-proposition, which de- iUntradlc- clares that certain qualities of matter can be known, without the me or subject being known along with them. How this contradiction comes about will be obvious from the following con¬ siderations. 8. This distinction has been employed by psycho¬ logy in refutation of what it conceives to be ideal- psychoiogi- ism. Idealism, according to psychology, is founded tiMofideai- on a refusal to recognise the primary qualities of matter as clearly distinguishable from the second¬ ary. It is supposed to confound the two classes under a common category, or rather to reduce the primary qualities to the same character and condi¬ tion as the secondary — to resolve extension, figure, and solidity, no less than heat, and colour, and sound, into mere modifications of the sentient sub¬ ject. It is supposed to maintain that the primary qualities are just as obscure and occult as the secondary ; that in dealing with the material uni¬ verse we are cognisant, not of the qualities of external objects, but only of certain changes in our own sentient condition, and thus idealism is sup¬ posed to have succeeded either in abolishing or in rendering doubtful the absolute existence of mate¬ rial things ; — because, if the primary qualities stand 152 INSTITUTES OF METAPHYSIC. PROP, on precisely the same footing with the secondary ; - if we know nothing about either class as they are in themselves ; and if the attempt to reduce our whole knowledge of the material world to a mere series of sensations be successful, these sensations may possibly be excited by other causes, and ac¬ counted for on other grounds than the postulation of an independent universe ; and therefore the ex¬ istence of the latter becomes, at any rate, problema¬ tical. With the annihilation of the sentient subject, the material universe would disappear — would be reduced to a nonentity, because it consists of a mere series of sensations. Such is the psychological conception of idealism. This system is supposed to aim at the extinction of material things, and to withdraw them from our cognition, by confounding or repudiating the dis¬ tinction between the primary and secondary quali¬ ties. The psychologist conceives that idealism is founded on a false generalisation to this effect : — some of the qualities of matter, such as heat, sound, and colour, turn out, on examination, to be mere • sensations in us, therefore the ivhole of the material qualities are susceptible of this resolution. Psychologi¬ cal refutation of idealism. 9. Having thus detected what he conceives to be the fallacy involved in the idealist’s argument — namely, the false generalisation on which it pro¬ ceeds, in other words, the shuffling together of the THEOEY OF KNOWING. 153 primary and secondary qualities, the psychologist then addresses himself to its refutation, and to the restoration of the material world to the independ¬ ency of which it appeared to have been so unlaw¬ fully deprived. He brings into play the distinction which we have been considering. He admits that some of the qualities of matter are reducible to mere sensations ; but he denies that the whole of them admit of this resolution. No, says he, there is ex¬ tension, there is figure, there is solidity. These qualities are refractory. They will not submit to be classed along with those more tractable com¬ panions of theirs, heat, cold, colour, &c., as the mere sensations of man. They refuse to be resolved into mere modifications of the human mind ; and the attempt so to resolve them is to confound together phenomena which are essentially different. They speak out plainly for themselves ; they claim a manifest existence of their own. There is nothing occult about them. Unlike the secondary qualities, they declare their presence unequivocally. They stand forth and defy the idealist, with all his machinations, to explode them. Our sensations may perhaps not afford us any clear information in regard to the nature of material things, or even any sufficient evidence of their existence ; but our perceptions of extension, figure, and solidity, place this truth in a clear light and on an indisputable footing ; and, on the manifest existence of these PROP. V. 154 INSTITUTES OF METAPHYSIC. PROP. V. This refuta¬ tion, if logi¬ cally con¬ clusive, is founded on i contradic¬ tion, and therefore cannot be accepted. qualities, we rest the establishment of the inde¬ pendent existence of matter. 10. There appears at first sight to be some force in that argument, but before it can be accepted as valid, one or two small circumstances must be taken into consideration. It is not enough to show that sensation is different from perception, and that the primary are different from the secondary qualities ; the psychologist must moreover show, or, at least, must assume, that the primary qualities are known 'per se, or without the “ me” being known along with them. Unless he assumes this his argument is good for nothing. His object is to prove that material things have an existence altogether independent of intelligence. Perhaps they have; but how can that conclusion be logically reached by merely affirming that extension, figure, and solidity are not of a sen¬ sational character, and that the primary qualities are different from the secondary ? This doctrine must be coupled with the assertion, that the primary qualities are known in their independency, otherwise the conclusion that they are independent can have nothing to rest upon. The psychological argument, therefore, when stripped of its wrappings and pre¬ sented in plain language, amounts to this : — certain qualities of matter, namely, the primary, are known to exist per se ; therefore these qualities, and the matter in which they inhere, do exist per se. But THEOEY OF KNOWING. 155 the premiss of that argument (we have nothing to do with the conclusion at present) is false and con¬ tradictory. It contradicts Proposition V., which is a necessary and demonstrated truth of reason. It is not possible for any of the qualities of matter to be known j:)er se, or without a “me” or subject being apprehended along with them. Therefore the psychological reasoning in support of the inde¬ pendent existence of matter rests on a foundation which falsifies the necessary laws of knowing ; and thus it not only fails to answer the purpose for which it was designed, but it poisons the stream of philo¬ sophical truth in its very fountain-head. 11. So much, then, for the distinction between the primary and secondary qualities of matter, and the uses to which it has been applied. This distinction is one on which psychology usually lays much stress as leading to important consequences. It is, how¬ ever, a distinction which answers no purpose. It holds out promises which it is unable to fulfil. It affords no refutation even of the spurious idealism which it assails. When viewed in its true colours, it is seen to falsify the laws of knowledge, and to mislead the footsteps of philosophy. It is, at best, a mere bubble on the sea of speculation; and it should now be allowed quietly to break and die. It has played its part as well as it could, and that was not very well. PROP. V. The distinc¬ tion of tlie primary and secondary qualities should be abandoned as useless, or worse. PKOPOSITION VL THE UNIVERSAL AND THE PARTICULAR IN COGNITION. Every cognition^'" must contain an element common to all cognition, and an element (or elements) peculiar to itself : in other words, every cognition must have a part which is unchangeable, necessary, and uni¬ versal (the same in all), and a part which Js changeable, contingent, and particular (different in all) ; and there can be no knowledge of the unchangeable, necessary, and universal part, exclusiv^e of the change¬ able, contingent, and particular part ; or of the changeable, contingent, and particular part, exclusive of the unchangeable, neces¬ sary, and universal part : that is to say, neither of these parts by itself can con- * Here, and generally throughout this work, the word '‘cognition” signifies the known, the cognituni. This remark is necessary lest the reader should suppose that it signifies the act rather than the object of knowledge. THEOEY OF KNOWING. 157 stitute a cognition ; but all knowledge is necessarily a synthesis of both factors. DEMONSTEATION. If every cognition did not contain an element common to all cognition, there could be no unity in cognitions; they could not be classed together. But they are classed together. They all rank as cogni¬ tions. Therefore every cognition must contain an element common to all cognition. Again, if every cognition did not contain an element (or elements) peculiar to itself, there could be no diversity in cog¬ nitions ; they could not be distinct from each other. But they are distinct from each other. They rank not only as cognitions, but as different cognitions. Therefore every cognition must contain an element (or elements) peculiar to itself. And thus the con¬ stitution of every cognition involves an unchange¬ able, necessary, and universal part' — a part which is the same in all, — and a changeable, contingent, and particular part — a part which is different in all ; and there can be no knowledge of either of these parts by itself, or exclusive of the other part ; but all knowledge is necessarily a synthesis of both factors. OBSEEVATIONS AND EXPLANATIONS. 1. The words ‘‘ unchangeable ” (or permanent) PROP. VI. 158 INSTITUTES OF METAPHYSIC. PROP. VI. Explanation of words. In what sense the contin¬ gent element is necessary, and in what sense it is contingent. “necessary” (or essential), “universal’’^ (or common or general), as here employed, are nearly or alto¬ gether synonymous. The unchangeable is that which cannot be changed in cognition, and is there¬ fore equivalent to the necessary and universal. The necessary is that which cannot be dispensed with, or got rid of in cognition, and is therefore equivalent to the unchangeable and universal. The universal is that which is everywhere and always present in cognition, and is therefore equivalent to the un¬ changeable and necessary. In contrast to these terms stand the words “changeable'’ (or fluctuating), “ contingent ” (or accidental), “ particular ” (or peculiar). These, too, are mere varieties of the same expression. The changeable is that which can be changed in cognition, and is therefore equivalent to the contingent and particular. The contingent is that which may be otherwise in cognition, and is therefore equivalent to the changeable and parti¬ cular. The particular is that which may be displaced in cognition, and replaced by some other particular, and is therefore equivalent to the changeable and contingent. 2. This proposition declares that every cognition must contain a particular and contingent, as well as a universal and necessary element. Hence it may be concluded that the contingent element is as necessary to the constitution of knowledge as the THEORY OF KNOWING. 159 necessary element is. And so, in one sense, it is. No knowledge is possible except through a union of these two factors. Therefore, neither part can be supposed to be wanting, without destroying the very conception of knowledge. But the explanation is this : although the contingent element cannot be abolished or left out, and is, therefore, in a certain sense necessary, it may nevertheless he changed. It is susceptible of infinite or indefinite variation. One particular (a tree, for instance) may be re¬ moved, but provided another particular (a house or something else) be placed before me, my knowledge continues to subsist. This element, then, is regarded as contingent, not because every form of it can be dispensed with — not because knowledge can take place without it, but solely because it can be varied. It is accidental because it is fluctuating. A cogni¬ tion cannot be formed without some peculiar feature entering into its composition ; but a cognition can be formed without this, or that, or any peculiar fea¬ ture that can be named, entering into its composi¬ tion ; for the varieties of the particular constituent are inexhaustible. If one form of it disappears, another comes in its place. The peculiar part of cognition may always be other than it is : if it could not, there would be an end to every variety of knowledge, and consequently to knowledge itself. A flower may be apprehended instead of a book — a sound instead of a colour ; any one particular PROP. VI. 160 INSTITUTES OF METAPHYSIC. PROP. VI. Why this proposition introduced. instead of any other. Hence this element is contin¬ gent throughout all its phases. On the other hand, the universal element is regarded as necessary, not because it alone is essential to the constitution of knowledge, but because it is invariable. On this factor no changes can be rung. Being the common quality of all knowledge, it admits of no variation ; being the same in all, it can have no substitute ; being uniform, it has no phases. It can never be other than it is. If it could, it would no longer be the common quality. Our cognitions would lose their unity. They would cease to be cognitions, just as they would cease to be cognitions by the suppression of the peculiar element which imparts to them their diversity. Hence the common element is necessary with a double necessity. It can neither be abolished nor changed. The particular element is necessary only with a singler necessity. It cannot be abolished : some peculiarity must attach to every cognition; but it can be changed; it is changed incessantly. Vicissitude is its very character ; and therefore, in all its forms, it is contingent or acci¬ dental. 8. The truth of this proposition was tacitly as¬ sumed in the introduction to this work, and is in¬ deed presupposed by the very nature and terms of the inquiry. For when it is asked. What is the one element common to all knowledge — the constant THEORY OF KNOWING, 161 feature present in every cognition? — (see Intro- duction, § 85, also foot-note p. 73,) — this question, of - course, implies that there is such an element or fea¬ ture, and also that our cognitions contain other con¬ stituents of a variable and particular character. But a formal enunciation and proof of the proposition have been brought forward, because, while it pre¬ sents the only correct analysis of knowledge, and the only tenable doctrine on the subject of “the par¬ ticular and the universal,'" it affords an opening for a few remarks on the history of that much-debated but still undecided topic. This proposition is the thesis of that controversy — the institute which settles it. The main purpose, however, which this propo¬ sition serves is, that it supplies the only premiss from which it is competent to prove that the mind cannot be known to be material* — a point essential to ulterior proceedings, and which must be made good in order to support the concluding truth of the ontology. 4. Like every other question in philosophy, the discussion respecting “ particulars and universals ” Question . . concerning was begun at the wrong end. This topic was made particu- ° ° lar and the a question of Being before it had undergone proba- “"steaTof tionary scrutiny and received settlement as a ques- a^quesHon^of tion of Knowing. The Greek philosophers, at a * See Prop. VIII. L 162 INSTITUTES OF METAPHYSIC. PROP. VI. very early period, were impressed with the correct conviction that all science is the pursuit of the uni¬ versal amid the particular, the permanent amid the fluctuating, the necessary amid the contingent, the One in the All. But they applied this right method to the consideration of a wrong object. Overlook¬ ing, or paying but little heed to, the circumstance that all knowledge is made up of these two consti¬ tuents, they leaped forward, without sufficient evi¬ dence, to the conclusion that all existence is com¬ posed in the same way — is a synthesis of the particular and the universal. They thus lost them¬ selves, at the outset, in ontological rhapsodies and hypotheses. Instead of pausing to study the con¬ stitution of knowledge, as that which could alone afford a reasonable basis for any scheme of ontology — instead of searching out the element common to all knowledge, the necessary, as distinguished from the contingent, part of thinking — the factor which never varies amid all the fluctuations of cognition — the one known in all known — they proceeded at once to the investigation of Being, and went in quest of the element common to all existence — the factor which never varies amid all the fluctuations of the natural universe — the necessary, as distin¬ guished from the contingent, part of things — the one Being in all being ; and, in consequence of this inverted procedure, their researches ended in nought. THEORY OF KNOWING. 163 5. This mistaken direction showed itself most in prop. VI. the earliest period of speculation. Thus, when - Thales maintained that moisture, or when Anaxi- question of 'being by the menes proclaimed that air, was the one in the many eauy phiio- — the principle common to all existence — the re- search was evidently an inquiry into being, and moreover into mere material being. Such crude essays are memorable only as early indications of a right tendency wrongly directed ; the right tendency being the inclination to detect some one circum¬ stance common to a multitude of diversified pheno¬ mena — its wrong direction being the application of this inclination to the phenomena of existence, and - not, in the first instance, to the phenomena of cog¬ nition. 6. Parmenides extended the inquiry beyond mere . sensible or material existence ; but he effected no Parmenides. What change revolution in the character of the problem. Con- effected on the ques- eeiving that the only truth worthy of a philoso- pher’s consideration was such as could not possibly be other than it is ; and aware, moreover, that • truth characterised by this strict necessity was not ■ to be found amid the phenomena of sense, he re¬ jected, as of no value in philosophy, the meagre results of the physical inquirers who had preceded him. The central and abiding principle of the universe, the common quality, the binding unity in all things, must present itself, not only as an actual 164 INSTITUTES OF METAPHYSIC. PROP. VI. It still relat¬ ed to Being — not to Knowing. fact of nature, but as a necessary truth of reason. Intelligence must be incompetent to think it other¬ wise than it is. Its negation must be a contradic¬ tion, an absurdity. Such a principle, therefore, cannot be found in the material world, — cannot be apprehended by the senses ; for these might have been different from what they are, and all their intimations might have been different. So far Parmenides got. He removed the inquiry from the region of contingency into the region of neces¬ sity. But he did not shift it from the field of Being to that of Knowing. 7. This change was important. A great step is gained so soon as necessary, and not contingent, truth is felt to be the right object of speculative interest, and to have a paramount claim on our regard. But the revolution being incomplete — the question still being, What is ? — not. What is known ? the research continued to turn in a circle Avithout making any advance. Parmenides and his school kept swimming in a fatal eddy. There is, said they, one Being in all Being, or rather in all Becoming, — a universal essence which changes not with the vicissitudes of mundane things. And this one Being, this essence of all existence, is the only true Being. But what is it, this one Being, — this universal essence ? The only answer is, that it is the one being, the never-changing essence, the im¬ mutable amid the mutable, the necessary amid the THEOEY OF KNOWING. 1G5 contingent, and so forth. The childish generalisa¬ tions of the school of Thales are quite as satisfactory as these unreasoned and unmeaning repetitions. PROP. VI. 8. When it is said that these philosophers specu¬ lated concerning the nature of Being, and not con- Indecision of . , r Tr • 1 • ^ Greek specu- cerning the nature or Knowing, this does not mean ution, xhe ° ° ' tliree crises of that they entered on the former research under the p>‘iiosophy. influence of any clear and deliberate preference, or adhered to it exclusively. The distinction, at that time, had not been definitely made ; even to this hour it has never been clearly laid down, or kept constantly in view. It is not, therefore, to be sup¬ posed that these philosophers expressly excluded the laws and constitution of knowledge from their consideration. An inorganic epistemology, like a primitive stratum, crops out, at intervals, through the crust of their ontological lucubrations ; and their conjectures about existence are interspersed with notices about cognition. There is, indeed, a constant tendency in their speculations to work the question round from the one of these topics into the other, and to ask not only, how do things exist ; how and what are they ; what renders them exist¬ ent? but also to raise the very different question, how are things known ; how and what do we think about them ; what renders them intelligible ? The crude cosmogonies which have the former investi¬ gation in view, break asunder ever and anon, and afford glimpses of intellectual systems which aim at 16G INSTITUTES OF METAPHYSIC. PROP. VI. the solution of the latter more accessible problem. This obscure movement, this wavering to and fro between the question of Being and that of Know¬ ing, is the chief point of interest in the develop¬ ment of the Greek metaphysic. But while it was going on, it had the effect of entangling the opera¬ tions of reason in coils which it is scarcely possible to unravel. Philosophy has three crises; First, when the nature of Being, or the question, What is ? is proposed for solution before the nature of Knowing, or the question, What is known? is taken into consideration ; Secondly, when Being and Knowing are inquired into together, and indis¬ criminately, by means of a mixed research ; and, Thirdly, when the nature of Knowing is examined, and the question. What is known ? is asked and answered before any attention is given to the pro¬ blem which relates to existence. During the first period there is most error, for the whole method is wrong ; the order of procedure is inverted. Here speculation is at its minimum. During the second period there is most confusion, for the attempt to carry out the two theories simultaneously, and not in succession, gives rise to the utmost disorder. But there is less error, for the revolution which adjourns the one question, and brings the other round for examination, is in progress. The method is coming right ; speculation is beginning to assert itself. But it is only during the third period that THEORY OF KNOWING. 167 light can be looked for, when all consideration of I’Ror. ... . that which exists is resolutely waived, until that - which is known has been determined. Speculation is then on the ascendant. 9. The writings of Plato are eminently charac¬ teristic of the second of these crises. In the hands piato ap¬ peared during of this philosopher, the discussion respecting the particular and the universal became a mixed re- search, in which the attempt was made to deter¬ mine, at one stroke, both what is, and what is known. The particular and universal (the former element being the to yiywjuepoi/, the latter • the ro ov) was no longer the sole or perhaps even the main object of inquiry. It was considered along with the known particular and universal ; the former element being the t6 madriTov^ the latter the ItSo?, or Ibia. The two speculations, which, how¬ ever, were continually interlacing, went on side by side ; and the result given out, as may be inferred from a liberal interpretation of the spirit of the Platonic philosophy, was that the known and the . existent are coincident. The particular and the universal in existence were declared to be, in all essential respects, identical with the particular and universal in cognition. 10. And doubtless this coincidence is the highest truth which Philosophy seeks to establish — is the 168 INSTITUTES OF METAPHYSIC. PROP. VI. The coinci¬ dence of tlie known and tlie existent must be proved, not guessed at. Plato’s de¬ ficiencies. sublimest lesson she can teach. To this end all her labours are directed, all her instructions minister. To prove it, is to reach the truth. But the coin¬ cidence of the known and the existent — the equation of Knowing and Being — is not to be assumed : it is not enough merely to surmise it. Its exhibition must be reasoned, and this reasoning is the most delicate, as well as the most extensive operation in metaphysics. It is indeed nothing less than the whole length of that dialectical chain, the laying out of whose separate links in an unbroken sequence of demonstrated propositions is the end which these Institutes have in view. And this undertaking can be carried to a successful issue only by an ascertain¬ ment of the conditions on which alone any knowledge is possible — no respect being paid, in the first in¬ stance, and pending that preliminary inquisition, to anything which may be supposed to exist. 1 1 . Here it was that Plato broke down. Instead of proving the coincidence of the known and the existent, he assumed it. But this assumption did not require the genius of a Plato : any man could have assumed it. What was wanted was its demon¬ stration : for unreasoned truth is an alien from phi¬ losophy, although it may not be an outcast from humanity.' But this proof Plato did not supply. His method, indeed, or rather want of method, rendered anything like a demonstration impossible. For the THEOEY OF KNOWING. 169 solution of the problem requires, as its very condition, that the two questions, which he ran into one, should - be kept perfectly distinct. Hence his ultimate con¬ clusion, however true, is groundless. Hence, too, the perplexed character of his whole train of speculation. His doctrine of Knowing is so closely intertwisted with his doctrine of Being, that it may be doubted whether his own eye could trace the strands of the discussion, or whether the filaments themselves were separate. His expositors, at any rate, have never been able to give any intelligible account of either theory, whether viewed separately, or viewed in their amalgamation. 12. Nevertheless, if Plato was confused and un¬ to universal reality, like the sea which fits in to all the sinuosities of the land. Not a shore of thought urTrec systematic in execution, he was large in design, and his merits. " . ^ ^ _ The question mamificent in surmises. His pliant genius sits close respectingthe ° ^ ° particular and the uni¬ versal de¬ mands an en¬ tire recon- was left untouched by his murmuring lip. Over deep and over shallow he rolls on, broad, urbane, and unconcerned. To this day, all philosophic truth is Plato rightly divined ; all philosophic error is • Plato misunderstood. Out of this question respect¬ ing the particular and the universal, as moved by him, came the whole philosophy of the Alexandrian . absolutists, the whole contentions of the medieval schoolmen. Around it all modern speculation gra¬ vitates. Even psychology has laid her small finger PROP. VI. A prelimi¬ nary ambi¬ guity- ■/ 170 INSTITUTES OP METAPHYSIC. on this gigantic theme, and vainly imagines that she has settled it for ever. But the wheel of controversy still moves round in darkness, and no explanation hitherto offered has sufficed to arrest the flying truth or to dispel the gloom. Realism, conceptualism, and nominalism, have all been tried in vain : they are all equally at fault. These quack medicaments bring no relief. These shallow words are not the Verba et voces quibus bunc lenire dolorem Possis. No one knows where the exact point of the contro¬ versy — the true cause of the confusion — lies. To reach the source, of the mischief, as well as the heal¬ ing springs, the whole question, both in itself and in its history, must be excavated anew. 13. A preliminary ambiguity presents itself. The doctrine of the particular and the universal, whether considered in relation to knowledge, or in relation to existence, is nowhere embodied by Plato in any distinct proposition. It may, therefore, mean either, ' first, that every cognition is hoth particular and universal ; in other words, that each cognition has a part peculiar to itself, and a part common to all cognition — is, in short, a synthesis of both factors, as affirmed in this sixth proposition ; or, secondly, it may mean that every cognition is either particular or universal ; in other words, that some cognitions contain only that which is peculiar to them, while THEORY OF KNOWING. 171 others consist only of that which is common to all, . prop. . . . or to many cognitions. In short, that some cogni- - tions are mere particular cognitions, and that others are mere universal cognitions ; or, more shortly, that either factor by itself may constitute a cognition. 14 The same ambiguity pervades his doctrine of the particular and the universal, considered in rela- Further . , _ statement of tion to existence. It may either mean that every ambiguity, existence is both particular and universal — that each existing thing has a part peculiar to itself, and a part common to all, or to many existing things ; or it may mean that every existence is either particular or universal ; in other words, that some beings con¬ tain only that which is peculiar to them, while others consist only of that which is common to all or to many beings; in short, that some existences are mere particular existences, and that others are mere uni¬ versal or general existences. 15. Or the question may be put in this way : Is Plato’s analysis of knowledge and of existence a Illustration ... ... of the ambi- division of these into elements (a particular element g»ity- and a universal element), or is it a division of them into hinds (a particular kind and a universal kind)? It is obvious that these divisions are very different, and that, until we know which of the two is in¬ tended, we can make no progress, and should run into extreme confusion, were we to acknowledge no 172 INSTITUTES OF METAPHYSIC. PROP. VI. distinction between them, or mistake the one for the other. When the chemist (to illustrate this matter) analyzes certain substances — salts, for ex¬ ample — into elements, finds a common base on the one hand, and certain specific differences on the other, we should fall into a serious error were we to suppose that each of the elements was a kind of salt ; just as we should fall into an equal error if, on his dividing salts into kinds or classes, we were to suppose that each of the classes was a mere ele¬ ment of salt. When the logician, in the terms of the hackneyed definition, analyzes human beings into “ organised and rational,” our mistake would be considerable, were we to understand his statement as a division of human beings into kinds ; for, in that case, we should conceive one class of men to be organised, but not rational, and another class to be rational, but not organised. The division must be accepted as a resolution of human nature into its essential constituents — to wit, bodily organi¬ sation and reason. Again, when human beings are divided into male and female, this is a separation of them into kinds ; to mistake it for an analysis of mankind into elements would lead to very awkward misapprehensi ons. 16. So in regard to the analysis of cognition and of existence. It is one thing to say that all cogni¬ tions and all existences contain both a universal THEOEY OF KNOWING. 173 and particular element ; it is quite a different thing prop. to say that every cognition and every existence is - Is the Pla¬ tonic analysis of cognition ticular or a universal existence. These two affir- existence a division mations, although apparently akin, and very liable to be mistaken for each other, are so far from being the same that each is the direct denial of the other. For if the analysis be a division into elements, and if every cognition and every existence must be both particular and universal, there cannot be one kind of cognition which is particular, and another kind which is universal, or one kind of ex¬ istence which is particular, and another kind which is universal. The elements of cognition, and the elements of existence, cannot be themselves cogni¬ tions or existences, any more than the elements of salt can be themselves salts. To suppose the ele¬ ments of cognition to be themselves cognitions, or the elements of existence to be themselves exis¬ tences, would be to mistake the division into ele¬ ments for the division into kinds. Again, if the analysis be a division into kinds, and if every cog¬ nition and every existence must be either particu- . lar or universal, there can be no cognitions and no existences which are both particular and universal. Kinds of cognition, and kinds of existence, can never be mere elements of cognition, or elements of existence, any more than the different kinds of salts can be mere elements of salt ; and to suppose them either a particular or a universal cognition — a par- 174 INSTITUTES OF METAPHYSIC. PROP. VI. Rightly in¬ terpreted, it is a division into ele¬ ments. to be such, would be to mistake the division into kinds for the division into elements. Thus the two analyses are not only different ; they are absolutely incompatible with each other. Each denies all that the other affirms. It is, therefore, a point of essen¬ tial importance to determine which of the two was contemplated by Plato in his theory of Knowing and Being. He divides all cognition into the par¬ ticular and the universal. That is certain : the doubtful point is, whether the analysis is a division into elements, or a division into kinds ; for it can¬ not be both. He likewise divides all existence into the jiarticular and the universal. That, also, is cer¬ tain. But is this analysis a division into elements or into kinds ? That is the point which Plato has left somewhat undecided ; and it is one on which we must come to a distinct understanding if we would comprehend his philosophy, either in itself or in its bearings on the subsequent course of speculation. 1 7. Although no express decision of this question can be found in the writings of Plato, the whole tenor of his speculations proves beyond a doubt that his aim, in both cases, was the ascertainment of ele¬ ments, and not the enumeration of kinds ; and that in affirming that all knowledge and all existence was both particular and universal, he intended to deny, and virtually did deny, that some cognitions THEOEY OF KNOWING. 175 and some existences were merely particular, and that others were merely universal. Whether this denial is a true doctrine in so far as existence is concerned, must be reserved for subsequent consi¬ deration ; that question cannot be touched upon in the epistemology. But it is certainly a true doc¬ trine in so far as knowledge is concerned, and as such it is advanced and advocated in this sixth proposition. In justice, therefore, to Plato — for every philosopher is entitled to the best construc¬ tion which can be put upon his opinions — we are bound to hold that his analysis of cognition and of existence was intended as a resolution of these into their elements : and being this, it was equivalent to a denial that these elements were kinds of cognition or kinds of existence. If a man maintains that every drop of water is composed of the two ele¬ ments, hydrogen and oxygen, he vii’tually denies that hydrogen, by itself, is a kind of water, and that oxygen, by itself, is a kind of water. So if a man affirms that every existence consists of two ele¬ ments, and that every cognition consists of two ele¬ ments, he virtually denies that either of the ele¬ ments, by itself, is a kind of existence or a kind of cognition. This position, affirmative and negative, we believe Plato to have occupied. 18. But various obstacles prevented this doctrine from being accepted, or even understood. The main PROP. VI. 176 INSTITUTES OF METAPHYSIC. rROP. impediment was that which has been already insisted on — the neglect to keep the theory of Knowing dis- generally tmct irom the theorv of Being, and to work out the fnfo'wnds Completely before entering on the other. This omission threw the whole undertaking into disorder, and led to a total misconception of the character of the Platonic analysis. Plato’s epistemology was un¬ ripe. He had merely succeeded in carrying our cognitions up into certain subordinate unities, cer¬ tain inferior universals, called by him ideas, and which afterwards, under the name of genera and species, afforded such infinite torment to the school¬ men, until they were disposed of, and laid at rest for a time, by the short-sighted exorcisms of psycho¬ logy. But there he stuck. He failed to carry them up into their highest unity. He missed the real and crowning universal, and lost himself among fictitious ones. The summum genus of cognition, which is no abstraction but a living reality, has no place in his system. He has nowhere announced what it is. Hence his theory of knowledge was left incomplete, and being incomplete it was unintelli¬ gible ; for in philosophy the completed alone is the comprehensible. His theory of existence was still more bewildering : it was burthened with its own difficulties and defects, besides those entailed upon it by an epistemology which ^was very considerably in arrear. This, the ontological aspect of the Pla¬ tonic doctrine, was the side which was chiefly looked THEOEY OF KNOWING. 177 to, and which principally influenced the philosophy of succeeding times. Yet what could be made of a - doctrine which asserted that all existence was both particular and universal, in the face of an unbounded • creation, apparently teeming with merely particular existences ? That position seemed to be checkmated at once, both by the senses and the reason of man¬ kind. Could Plato have maintained a thesis so in¬ defensible? That was scarcely credible: and alto¬ gether the perplexity was so great that philoso¬ phers were driven to accept the other alternative, as the simpler and more intelligible interpretation of the two, and to construe the Platonic analysis of Knowing and Being as a division of these into kinds, and not into elements. They supposed Plato to maintain that every cognition and every existence is either particu¬ lar or universal ; and thus they ascribed to him the , very doctrine which he virtually denied, and took from him the very doctrine which he virtually affirmed. 19. This charge requires some explanation. When it is said that philosophers generally have misappre- Explanation , . . of this charge. bended the Platonic analysis, this does not mean that they expressly adopted the wrong interpretation, and expressly disavowed the right one. They were not thus explicit in their error : they did not perceive the wideness of the distinction between kinds and ele- •X ments, and, therefore, all that is meant is that they manifested a marked bias in favour of the wrong M PROP. VI. 178 INSTITUTES OF METAPHYSIO. interpretation without adhering to it consistently. The most perplexing cases with which the historian of philosophy has to deal are those in which he finds two mutually contradictory doctrines advocated without any suspicion of their repugnancy, and as if they were little more than two forms of one and the same opinion. It is difficult to deal with a case of this kind, because it may seem unfair to charge a writer with maintaining an opinion when, at the same time, he advances something which, directly contradicts it._ The only way of coming to a settlement is by taking into account the general tone and scope of his observations, and by giving him credit for the doctrine towards which he appears most to incline. The case before us is one of this description. The discordancy of the two analyses was not perceived by those who speculated in the wake of Plato. Hence, at one time, they may speak of the particular and the universal as if these were mere elements, and, at another time, as if they were kinds of cognition or of existence. But the prevail¬ ing tone of their discussions shows that they favoured the latter interpretation. Plato is supposed to have held that there was a lower kind of knowledge (par¬ ticular cognitions, sensible impressions), which was conversant with a lower class of things — namely, par¬ ticular existences ; and a higher kind of knowledge (universal cognitions, general conceptions, ideas), which dealt with a higher order of things — to wit. THEOEY OF KNOWING. 179 universal existences. An inferior kind of knowledge prop. ® VI. occupied about particulars, and a superior kind of - knowledge occupied about universals — that is the doctrine usually ascribed to Plato ; and most fatal has this perversion of his meaning proved to the subsequent fortunes of philosophy. The general tenor of speculation during the last two thousand years, as well as its present aspect, betrays at every turn and in every feature the influence of this car¬ dinal misconception — this transmutation of ele¬ ments into kinds — this mistaking for cognitions of what are the mere factors of cognition. 20. This erroneous interpretation, and indeed rever¬ sal of the Platonic doctrine, after giving rise to inter- sixtii couu- ter-proposi- minable controversies, which shall be noticed imme- 1'®"- diately, has at length settled down in the following counter-proposition, which represents faithfully the ordinary psychological deliverance on the subject of knowledge — the topic of existence being of course kept out of the question at present. Sixth coiinter- liroposition : “ Every cognition is either particular or universal (also called general) ; in other words, there is a knowledge of the changeable, contingent, and particular part of cognition, to the exclusion of the unchangeable, necessary, and universal part ; and a knowledge of the unchangeable, necessary, and uni¬ versal part, to the exclusion of the changeable, con¬ tingent, and particular part. Thus there is one kind 180 INSTITUTES OF METAPHYSIC. PROP. VI. This couijter- proposition is itself a proof of the charge here made against phi¬ losophers. of knowledge which is particular, and another kind which is universal or general. The particular cogni¬ tions are cognitions of particular things only — such as this tree, that book, and so forth. These precede the universal or general cognitions, which are subse- cpient formations. The latter are cognitions, not of universal things, but of nonentities. They are mere fabrications of the mind formed by means of abstrac¬ tion and generalisation. They are also termed con¬ ceptions or general notions, — such notions as are ex¬ pressed by the words, man, animal, tree, and all other terms denoting genera and species.” 21. The statement of this counter-proposition is sufficient of itself to prove the truth of the charge advanced against philosophers, namely, that they have misinterpreted the Platonic analysis, and have mistaken for cognitions what Plato laid down as mere elements of cognition — and which, being mere ele¬ ments of cognitions, could not, by any possibility, be cognitions themselves. For it is certain that, in the opinion of psychology as declared in this counter¬ proposition, the particular cognitions are entertained by the mind before the general ones are formed, which they could not be held to be, unless they were held to be a distinct species of cognition. But if the particular are held to be distinct from the general cognitions, it is plain that the latter must be held to be distinct from the former. It is also certain that THEOKY OF KNOWING. 181 this doctrine has been inherited by psychology from a source much older than herself ; and that this source - can be no other than the misinterpretation which has been just laid to the charge of philosophers — and the truth of which allegation is now clearly esta¬ blished by these considerations. Had the Platonic analysis been rightly understood, and its true mean¬ ing been widely disseminated at first, no such doctrine as that embodied in the counter’-proposition could ever have obtained an ascendancy, or even found a place, in philosophy. 22. Before touching on the controversies to which allusion has been made, it may be well to review our Reviewofour position. position. The Platonic analysis of knowledge and existence into the particular and the universal admits of two interpretations. The particular and the uni¬ versal may be either elements or kinds ; and if they are the one, they cannot be the other. These two interpretations, being directly opposed to each other, open up two separate lines for speculation to move along. The one line which issues from the right interpretation — that, namely, which declares that the particular and the universal are mere elements — has never yet been followed out, — scarcely even entered upon. Philosophy has travelled almost entirely on the other line, which proceeds from the wrong in¬ terpretation — that, namely, which holds that the par¬ ticular and the universal are kinds of cognition and 182 INSTITUTES OF METAPHYSIC. l^ROP. VI. Misinterpre¬ tation of the Platonic ana¬ lysis traced into its con¬ sequences. kinds of existence. This ptith has been the highway on which systems have jostled systems and strewn the road with their ruins, since the days of Plato down through the middle ages, and on to the present time. And now, standing in the very source of the mistake which feeds the whole of them, and in which they all join issue — the misconception, namely, which has been already sufficiently described — we are in a position to unravel the controversies in which they were engaged, and to understand how none of them should have succeeded in establishing any truth of its own, however successful they may have been in refuting the errors of each other. 23. Our business, then, is to trace into its conse¬ quences, as manifested in the history of philosophy, the current misinterpretation of the Platonic analysis of knowledge and existence. Cognitions being sup¬ posed to be divided by Plato into two kinds or classes — a particular and a universal kind — and not into two elements — a particular and a universal ele¬ ment — the question immediately arose. What is the nature of the existences which correspond to these classes of cognition ? In regard to the particular class there was little or no difficulty. The particular existences around us — this table, that chair, or book, or tree — these and the like particular things were held to correspond to our particular cognitions. In such a statement there may be no great novelty or THEORY OF KNOWING. 183 interest : but it seems to contain nothin^ but what prop. . ° . VI. a plain man may very readily concede. Whether it - be really intelligible or not, it is, at any rate ^ appa¬ rently intelligible. 24. But what kind of existences correspond to the universal cognitions? That was the puzzle. If Perplexity to general the analysis of cognition be a division into kinds, existences, and if the particular cognitions are distinct from the universal, and have their appropriate objects — to wit, particular things — the universal cognitions must, of course, be distinct from the particular, and must have their appropriate objects. What, then, are these objects? What is the nature and manner of their existence ? What beings are there in rerum naturd corresponding to the universal cognitions — to such cognitions as are expressed by the words ‘‘man,"’ or “ animal,” or “tree”? Whatever diffi¬ culties the right interpretation of the Platonic doc¬ trine might have given rise to, considerable excite¬ ment would have been avoided by its adoption, be¬ cause by this inevitable question, which the other interpretation would have obviated, the philosophers of a later day, and in particular the schoolmen, were driven nearly frantic with vexation and despair. 25. Those who, to their misunderstanding of Plato, united a reverence for his name, and for what they Realism, conceived to be his opinions, maintained that the 184 INSTITUTES OF METAPHYSIC. PROP, universals — such genera and species as man, animal, - and tree — had an actual existence in nature, distinct, of course, from all particular^men, animals, or trees. They could not do otherwise ; for their master de¬ clares that the universal, both in knowledge and in existence, is more real than the particular — meaning • thereby that it is more real as an element, but not certainly as a kind, either of cognition or of exis¬ tence. His followers, however, who mistook his analysis, and at the same time placed implicit reli¬ ance on his word, were bound, in consistency, to contend for the independent and concrete existence of universal things. Whether these genera and species were corporeal or incorporeal, they were somewhat at a loss to determine; but that they were real they entertained no manner of doubt. And, accordingly, the doctrine known in the history of philosophy under the name of Realism, was en¬ throned in the schools, and being supported by the supposed authority of Plato, and in harmony with certain theological tenets then dominant, it kept its ascendancy for a time. 26. Realism, even in its most extravagant form, is Realism is uot One wliit more erroneous than the two doctrines Conceptual- w'hich Supplanted it. First came conceptualism. The actual independent existence of genera and species was too ridiculous and unintelligible an hypothesis to find favour with those who deferred THEORY OF KNOWING. 185 more to reason than to authority. They accord¬ ingly surrendered universals considered as inde¬ pendent entities ; and now, inasmuch as the old sources of our universal cognitions were thus ex¬ tinguished with the extinction of the realities from which they had been supposed to proceed, these philosophers, in order to account for them, were thrown upon a new hypothesis, which was this : they held that all existences are particular, and also, that all our knowledge is, in the first instance, particular ; that we start from particular cognitions ; but that the mind, by a process of abstraction and generalisation, which consists in attending to the resemblances of things, leaving out of view their differences, subsequently constructs conceptions, or general notions, or universal cognitions, which, how¬ ever, are mere entia rationis, and have no existence out of the intelligence which fabricates them. These genera and species were held to have an ideal, though not a real, existence, and to be the .objects which the mind contemplates when it employs such words as man, tree, or triangle. This doctrine is called Conceptualism. 27. The question very soon arose. Have these universal cognitions or general conceptions any existence even within the intelligence which is said to fabricate them ? It is obvious that there is no object in nature corresponding to the genus animal, PROP. VI. Conceptual¬ ism is de¬ stroyed by Nominalism. 186 INSTITUTES OF METAPHYSIC. PROP. VI. Evasion by which con¬ ceptualism endeavours to recover her ground, and to conci¬ liate nomin alism. Its failure. or to the species man, or to the genus figure, or to the species triangle. But is there any object in thoiight corresponding to these genera and species? There .certainly is not. These general terms are mere words, mere sounds, which have no objects corresponding to them either within the mind or out of it, — either in thought or in reality. Their ideal is quite as baseless and as fabulous as their real existence. So says Nominalism, speaking a truth which, when understood, is seen to be unquestion¬ able. 28. The grounds of nominalism, however, are not very well understood, even by the nominalists them¬ selves ; and hence conceptualism is supposed to re¬ cover her position, or at least to effect a compromise with her adversary, by affirming that the object which the mind contemplates when it employs a general term is some resemblance, some point or points of similarity, which it observes among a number of particular things, and that to this resem¬ blance it gives a name expressive of the genus to which the things in question belong. This explan¬ ation — which, although it is as old as the earliest defence of conceptualism, and a traditional common¬ place in every logical compendium, has been parad¬ ed, in recent times, by Dr Brown, almost as if it were a novelty of his own discovery — betrays a total misconception of the point really at issue. THEORY OP KNOWING. 187 Conceptualism cannot be permitted to take any advantage from this shallow evasion, in which a doctrine is advanced altogether inconsistent with the principle from which she starts. It is to be re¬ membered that this scheme divides our cognitions not into elements of cognition, but into cognitions — not into distinct factors, but into distinct kinds, of knowledge — a particular kind, called sometimes intuitions ; and a universal, or general kind, called usually conceptions. This is proved by the con¬ sideration that in the estimation of conceptualism our particular cognitions precede the formation of our general conceptions, which they could not do unless they were distinct and completed. The question, therefore, is not, Does the mind know or think of the universal along with the particular — the genus along with the singulars which compose it — the resemblance of things along with the things in which the resemblance subsists ? In a word, the (question is not. Is the conception always and only entertained along with the intuitions ? Conceptual¬ ism cannot clear herself by raising that question, and answering it in the affirmative ; for such an answer would be equivalent to the admission that the general cognitions (the conceptions) are not a kind of cognition, are not themselves cognitions, but are mere elements of cognition. But con¬ ceptualism is debarred from that plea by the posi¬ tion which she has taken up at the outset. She is PROP. VI. 188 INSTITUTES OF METAPHYSIC. PROP, bound to show — if sbe would make good her scheme VI. , .... - — that just as the particular cognitions stand dis¬ tinct from the general cognitions, so the latter stand distinct from the former. The question, therefore, with which conceptualism has to deal is this : does the mind know or think of the uni¬ versal without thinking of the particular — of the genus, without taking into account any of the singulars which compose it — of the resemblance among things, without looking, either really or ideally, to the things to which the resemblance belongs ? In a word, can the conceptions be objects of the mind without the intuitions, — just as, accord¬ ing to conceptualism, the intuitions can be objects of the mind without the conceptions ? That is the only question for conceptualism to consider, and to answer in the affirmative, if she can. But it is obvious that it can be answered only in the nega¬ tive : the mind cannot have any conception of a genus or a species without taking into account some of the particular things which they include. It ■ cannot think of the resemblance of things without thinking of the resembling things. And hence, all genera and all species, and everything which is said to be the object of the mind when it entertains a general conception, are mere words — sounds to which no meaning can be attached, when looked at irrespective of the particulars to which they refer. Thus conceptualism is destroyed. It perishes in consequence of the principle from which it starts — THEOEY OF KNOWING. 189 the division, namely, of our cognitions into kinds, and not into elements. The dilemma to which it is reduced is this : it must either stand to that dis¬ tinction, or it must desert it. If conceptualism stands to the distinction, and maintains that the general conceptions are distinct cognitions — are ideas cognisable by themselves, and independently of the particular cognitions — in that case the gene¬ ral conceptions evaporate in mere words ; for it is certain that the mind cannot think of any genus- without thinking of one or more of the particulars which rank under it. Thus nominalism is triumph¬ ant. Again, if con(?eptualism deserts the distinction, and admits that the general conceptions are not cognitions which can be entertained irrespective of the particular cognitions — in that case the general cognitions are reduced from cognitions to mere elements of cognition ; for a thought which cannot stand in the mind by itself is not a thought, but only a factor of thought. And thus we have a most incongruous doctrine, — an analysis which divides our cognitions into a kind and into an element. For conceptualism still cleaves to the doctrine of particular cognitions as distinct from the general ones, although, when hard pressed, she seems willing to admit that the latter are not dis¬ tinct from the former. Here the confusion becomes hopeless. This is as if we were, first, to divide human beings into men and women, and were then to affirm that the men only were human beings, and PROP. VI. 190 INSTITUTES OF METAPHYSIC. PROP, that the women were mere elements of human VI. - beings, — and finally, were to declare that although the men were different from the women, the women were not different from the men. That hank, which illustrates the confused subterfuges of con¬ ceptualism, we shall not waste time in unravelling. 29. Nominalism stands victorious ; but nominal- Nominaiism. ism, too, is doomcd Very speedily to fall. The cha¬ racter of nominalism is this ; it holds that all exist¬ ences are particular ; and that all cognitions are particular at first, and that they remain for ever particular. There are no such entities, either real or ideal, either in the mind or out of it, as general conceptions : but what is taken for such is al¬ ways some mere particular cognition, which, by a determination of thought, is allowed to stand as representative of all cognitions and presentations which may resemble it. Thus there is no concep¬ tion of triangle in general. When the mind thinks of this figure, it always conceives one or more definite and particular triangles, which it accepts as repre¬ sentative of all possible or actual triangles. It thinks of one or of several triangles with a mental reservation, that the varieties of which that figure is susceptible are not exhausted by the specimens of which it is thinking. This is what the mind does, when it supposes itself to be entertaining a general , conception — it is, all the while, entertaining one THEORY OF KNOWING. 191 or more which are merely particular. Thus, all our prop. cognitions from first to last are particular — the only - difference between those which are particular, and those which are called general, being that the latter are accepted as types or samples of all similar cog¬ nitions. 30. The error into which nominalism runs is the assumption that all or any of our cognitions are Nominalism , . .is annihilated merely particular. If conceptualism is wrong in Proposi- holding that any general conception by itself can be an object of the mind, nominalism is equally wrong in holding that any particular cognition by itself can be an object of the mind. Whether anything that exists is merely particular, we do not at present inquire ; but it is certain that nothing which is known is merely particular, because all knowledge, as has been proved by this sixth proposition, is of necessity a synthesis of the particular and the universal. Particular cognitions (the cognition, for example, of this pen absolutely by itself) are mere words, just as much as the general ideas expressed by tree, man, animal, and so forth, taken absolutely by themselves, are mere words. Particular cogni¬ tions, which involve no generality, are not conceiv¬ able, any more than general cognitions are conceiv¬ able which involve no particularity. For every cognition (see Demonstration VI.) must have an • element common to all cognition, and also an ele- 192 INSTITUTES OF METAPHYSIC. PROP, ment peculiar to itself. All knowledge requires - two factors, one of which is particular, and the other universal. This consideration effects the complete demolition of nominalism. 31. The summing up is this : All the errors in- Thesumming horitod by the systems which have been brought under review, originate in the capital oversight which mistakes the elements of cognition for kinds of cog¬ nition — the factors of ideas for ideas themselves, the constituents of thought for thoughts. This mistake was equivalent to the hypothesis that some cogni¬ tions were particular, and that others w^ere general, or universal. This hypothesis, when carried into ontology, led to the further mistake that there were • general existences in nature corresponding to the general cognitions, just as there were held to be par¬ ticular existences in nature corresponding to the particular cognitions. The doctrine of Eealism was proclaimed. Eealism was corrected by conceptualism, which maintained that the general existences had no reality in nature, but only an ideality in the mind — that they existed only as abstractions, and were not independent of the intelligence which fabricates them. This scheme fell dead before the assaults of nominalism, which asserted, and with perfect truth, > that these general existences had not even an ideality in the mind — that the genera and species had no distinct standing, even as abstractions, and that intel- THEOEY OF KNOWING. 193 ligence was incompetent to create or to contemplate them — in short, that, considered by themselves, they - were mere sounds or signs without any sense. And, finally, nominalism, having accomplished this good work, is struck down, and gives up the ghost, under the battery of this sixth proposition. Whether the particular things, the independent existence of which is assumed by nominalism, do really so exist or not, is a point on which the epistemology offers no opinion. But it declares unequivocally that the par¬ ticular cognitions which are held to correspond to these particular things have no existence in the ■ mind. They have no footing there, even as abstrac¬ tions. For this sixth proposition has proved that no intelligence is competent to harbour either a par¬ ticular cognition or a universal cognition — inasmuch as it has proved that every cognition is a synthesis of these two factors, and must jjresent both a parti¬ cular and a universal constituent. Those, however, who may think otherwise, will find satisfaction in the counter-proposition which states, it is believed with perfect fairness, the ordinary opinion. .32. It is worthy of remark, in conclusion, that the errors of philosophy have continually deepened in The abstract , , _ and the cou- proportion as its character and tendencies have ciete. waxed more and more psychological. The science of the human mind, as it is called, has done incalculable mischief to the cause of speculative truth. The N 194 INSTITUTES OF METAPHYSIC. PROP. VI. doctrine of abstraction, in particular, one of its fav¬ ourite themes, has been the parent of more aber¬ rations than can be told. Our psychologists may guard and explain themselves as they please, but their attribution to man of a faculty called abstrac¬ tion has been, from first to last, the most disconcert¬ ing and misleading hypothesis which either they or their readers could have entertained. We are sup¬ posed to have a power of forming abstract concep¬ tions ; but it is obvious from the foregoing obser¬ vations that we have no such power, and that no abstract idea, either particular or general, can be attained by any intelligence. Such conceptions can only be approximated. W'^hen the mind attends more to the particular than to the universal element, or, conversely, more to the universal than to the particular element of any cognition, the abstract particular*— that is, a thing by itself, or the abstract universal — that is, the genus by itself, is approached, but neither of them is ever reached. To reach either of them is impracticable, for this would re¬ quire the entire suppression of one or other of the factors of all cognition, and such a suppression would not be equivalent to the attainment of the abstract, but to the extinction of knowledge and intelligence. Had our psychologists informed us that the main endowment of reason is a faculty which prevents abstractions from being formed, there would have been much truth in the remark ; for intelligence THEOEY OF KNOWING. 195 cannot deal with abstractions. Abstract thinking is a contradiction, and has no place in the economy of the intellect. Such thinking is only apparent — never real. All knowledge and all thought are concrete, and deal only with concretions — the con¬ cretion of the particular and the universal. What the particular and the universal are, which constitute the concrete reality of cognition, is declared in the next proposition. •PROP. VI. PROPOSITION VIL WHAT THE UNIVERSAL AND THE PARTICULAR IN COGNITION ARE. The ego (or mind) is known as the element common to all cognitions, — matter is known as the element peculiar to some cognitions : in other words, we know ourselves as the unchangeable, necessary, and universal part of our cognitions, while we know matter, in all its varieties, as a portion of the change¬ able, contingent, and particular part of our cognitions — or, expressed in the technical language of logic, the ego is the known surumum genus, the known generic part, of all cognitions — matter is the known differ¬ ential part of some cognitions. DEMONSTRATION. It is a necessary truth of reason that the ego must he known (that is, must be known to itself) when- THEORY OF KNOWING. 197 ever it knows anything at all (by Prop. I.) : in other words, no cognition, in which one does not appre- - bend oneself, is possible. Therefore the ego or oneself is known as the element common to all cog¬ nition — that is, as the sunimum genus of cognition. Again, it is not a necessary truth of reason that matter must be known whenever anything at all is known : in other words, cognitions in which no mate¬ rial element is apprehended, are, if not actual, at any rate possible and conceivable. No contradiction is involved in that supposition ; and, therefore, mat¬ ter is not known as the element common to all cog¬ nition, but only as the element peculiar to some cognitions — that is, as the differential part of some cognitions. And hence the ego is the unchangeable, necessary, and universal part of cognition, while matter, in all its varieties, is only a portion (not the whole) of the changeable, contingent, and particular part of cognition. OBSERVATIONS AND EXPLANATIONS. 1. Although this proposition is, in its first clause, a mere repetition of Proposition I., its introduction why this is necessary, in order to mark distinctly what the is introduced, elements are which enter into the constitution of knowledge. It is not enough to show, as was done in the immediately preceding proposition, that every 198 INSTITUTES OF METAPHYSIC. PROP. VIT. cognition must embrace a particular and a universal part. What these parts are must also be exhibited ; and this, accordingly, is done in the present article. The ego or self is, of necessity, known along with whatever is known ; hence it enters into the compo¬ sition of every cognition, and is the permanent and universal factor of knowledge. Wherever anything at all is known, it is known. Matter, on the other hand, is known as that which enters into the compo¬ sition of many, perhaps of most, of our cognitions ; but inasmuch as reason does not assure us that all knowledge is impossible, except when something (indefinitely) material is apprehended, and assures us still less that all knowledge is impossible, except when something [definitely) material is apprehended — matter is fixed, by that consideration, as the changeable, contingent, and particular part of cog¬ nition. 2. Matter is not to be regarded as constituting The ego is the whole of the particular element of knowledge. coextensive with the uni- Xhe particular may have many forms besides those versal, mat- j j MtJLwe which we call material. Matter, therefore, in all its raent. ticuUi^^ie-'^' varieties, is only a portion of the phases of the par¬ ticular. The ego is necessarily identical with the whole of the common and permanent element ; be¬ cause nothing can possibly be conceived, except it¬ self, which an intelligence must always be cognisant of. But matter is not necessarily coextensive with THEORY OF KNOWING. 199 the particular and changeable element, because much may be conceived — if not actually by us, yet possibly by other intellects — besides matter, of which intel¬ ligence may be cognisant. Matter does not, of necessity, enter into the constitution of cognition. Something particular must be known whenever anything at all is known, but this particular need not be material ; for, as has been said, the particular is not necessarily restricted to, and convertible with, matter, although the universal, when carried to its highest generalisation, is necessarily limited to, and convertible with, the ego. PROP. vir. .3. Another reason for the introduction of this pro- Another rea- ...... . , . son for intro- position IS, that it is required as a stepping-stone to ducingtins ^ ^ ± j. o proposition. the next. 4 That the common, permanent, and necessary constituent of all knowledge should not have been Remarkable 1 111 T 1 1 1 1 ^*'‘'**^ brought clearly to light, and turned to good account, position and had all its consequences pressed out of it long before now, is not a little remarkable. It has‘°"^^®°' scarcely, however, been even enunciated — certainly not emphatically dwelt upon. There cannot be a doubt that speculation, from a very early period, has aimed at the ascertainment of the immutable and universal feature which all cognitions present. It might have been expected, therefore, that the first consideration which would have occurred to the 200 INSTITUTES OF METAPHYSIC. PROP, inquirer would have been this, that the factor in VII. ^ , - question must be that which we are more familiar with than we are with anything else — must be that, to find which we must have a very short way to go. For, surely, that which we always know, and cannot help knowing, must be that which we are best acquainted with, that which lies nearest to our hand, and which may be most readily laid hold of. This reflection might have been expected to bring him to the question. What, then, is that which we are most familiar with, and cannot help knowing, dur¬ ing every conscious moment of our lives? And this question would have been followed, one might have thought, by the prompt answer, It is ourselves. Nevertheless, both the question and the answer were missed. The common element has indeed been sometimes obscurely indicated, but its importance has never been sufficiently proclaimed ; its fruits have never been gathered in. The words inscribed • over the porch of the temple at Delphi, aeavrov — which, properly interpreted, must mean “ Consider well ; it is thyself, oh man, that thou art conscious of, in and along with all that comes before thee ” — have been oracular in vain. 5. Several causes might be pointed out in explan- Tiie oversight ation of tliis Oversight: they are, however, mostly, accounted _ _ _ offamuiaruy entirely, reducible to the one great and leading cause which has been already referred to (Prop. I., THEORY OF KNOWING. 201 obs. 6) ; to wit, familiarity. The influence of this prin¬ ciple in deadening the activity and susceptibility of the mind is overwhelming to an extreme. Drugged with this narcotic, man’s intellect turns with indiffer¬ ence from the common and the trite, and courts only the startling and the strange. Every one must have remarked, both in his own case and in that of others, how prone we are to suppose that little advantage, and no valuable result, can accrue from a careful study of that to which we are thoroughly habituated. “ Per¬ petual custom,” says Cicero, “makes the mind callous, and people neither admire nor require a reason for those things which they constantly behold.” Rare events are the natural aliment of wonder ; and, when it cannot be supplied with these, our inquisitive¬ ness is apt to languish and expire. Abundant examples of this tendency — this proneness to pre¬ fer the unusual to the customary, and to conceive that things are marvellous in proportion to their rarity, and that the seldomer they appear the more are they entitled to our regard — might be drawn from the practice of mankind in the daily conduct of life, as well as from the history of science in all periods, but especially in the earlier stages of its development. The Science of an untutored age passes by unheeded the ordinary appearances of nature ; but her interest is easily aroused, her atten¬ tion is readily enchained, by such mysterious portents as the earthquake and the eclipse. She is blind to PROP. VII. 202 INSTITUTES OF METAPHYSIC. PROP. VII. W e study tlie strange rather than the familiar, hence trutli escapes us. the common and familiar phenomena of light ; she is deaf to the common and familiar phenomena of sound : she has eyes only for the lightning ; ears only for the thunder. She asks with eager curiosity, Qua3 fulminis esset origo, — Jupiter, an venti, discussa nube tonarent? But she leaves unquestioned the normal or every¬ day presentments of the senses and the universe ; she pays the tribute of admiration to nature’s excep¬ tions far more promptly than to her majestic rule. 6. It is thus that uncultivated men neglect their own household divinities, their tutelary Penates, and go gadding after idols that are strange. But this proclivity is not confined to them ; it is a malady which all flesh is heir to. It is the besetting infir¬ mity of the whole brotherhood of man. We natu¬ rally suppose that truth lies in the distance, and not at our very feet ; that it is hid from our view, not by its proximity, but by its remoteness ; that it is a commodity of foreign importation, and not of do¬ mestic growth. The farther it is fetched the better do we like it — the more genuine are we disposed to think it. The extraordinary moves us more, and is more relished than the ordinary. The heavens are imagined to hold sublimer secrets than the earth. We conceive that what is the astonishing to us, is also the astonishing in itself ; thus truly making THEORY OP KNOWING. 203 “ man the measure of the universe.” In this super¬ stition the savage and the savan fraternise (bear witness, mesmerism, with all thy frightful follies !) — and, drunk with this idolatry, they seek for truth at the shrine of the far-off and the uncommon ; not knowing that her ancient altars, invisible because continually beheld, rise close at hand, and stand on beaten ways. Well has the poet said, “ That is the truly secret which lies ever open before us ; And the least seen is that which the eye constantly sees.” Schiller. But, dead to the sense of these inspired words, we make no effort to shake off the drowsing influence, or to rescue our souls from the acquiescent torpor, which they denounce — no struggle to behold that which we lose sight off, only because we behold it too much, or to penetrate the heart of a secret which escapes us only by being too glaringly revealed. Instead of striving, as we ought, to render ourselves strange to the familiar, we strive, on the contrary, to render ourselves familiar with the strange. Hence our better genius is overpowered ; and we are given over to a delirium, which we mistake for wisdom. Hence we are the slaves of mechanism, the inheri¬ tors and transmitters of privileged error ; the bonds¬ men of convention, and not the free and deep- seeing children of reason. Hence we remain in¬ sensible to the true grandeurs and the sublimer wonders of Providence ; for, is it to be conceived PROP. VII. 204 INSTITUTES OF METAPHYSIC. PROP. VII. Hence ne¬ glect of this proposition. that the operations of God, and the order of the universe, are not admirable, precisely in proportion as they are ordinary ; that they are not glorious, precisely in proportion as they are manifest ; that they are not astounding, precisely in proportion as they are common ? But man, blind to the marvels which he really sees, sees others to which he is really blind. He keeps stretching forwards into the dis¬ tant ; he ought to be straining backwards, and more back, into the near ; for there, and only there, is the object of his longing to be found. Perhaps he may come round at last. Meanwhile, it is inevitable that he should miss the truth. 7. The general fact which these remarks are in¬ tended to express is, that our knowledge of a thing is always naturally in an inverse ratio to our fami¬ liarity with it ; that insight is always naturally at its minimum, wherever intimacy is at its maximum : in a word, that, under the influence of custom, the patent becomes the latent. This truth being un¬ questionable, it is not difficult to understand how philosophers should have failed to apprehend, or at least, to give a marked prominence in their systems to the necessary and permanent element of all cog¬ nition. This element is the ego, or oneself. But the ego comes before us along with whatever comes before us. Hence we are familiar with it to an ex¬ cess. VVe are absolutely surfeited with its presence. THEOEY OF KNOWING. 205 Hence we almost entirely overlook it ; we attend to it but little. That neglect is inevitable. Its per¬ petual presence is almost equivalent to its perpetual absence. And thus the ego, from the very circum¬ stance of its being never absent from our cognitions, comes to be almost regarded as that which is never present in them at all. Our intimacy with self be¬ ing the maximum of intimacy, our attention to self, conformably to the law of familiarity, is naturally the minimum of attention. It is thus that we would explain how it has happened that, although the article which philosophers were in quest of was one which, by the very terms of their search, was necessarily and continually known to them — inas¬ much as what they wanted to lay hold of was the common and ever-present and never-changing ele¬ ment in all their knowledge — it should still have evaded their pursuit. The foregoing considerations may perhaps be sufficient to account for this memor¬ able oversight, and to explain how the ego, from our very familiarity with it, should have escaped notice, as the permanent, necessary, and universal consti¬ tuent of cognition ; and how, consequently, the pro¬ position which declares that such is its character should have failed, hitherto, to obtain in philosophy the place and the recognition which it deserves. 8. This also may be added, that the importance of a principle is never perceived, nor the necessity of PROP, vn. 206 INSTITUTES OF METAPHYSIC. PROP. VII. Another cir¬ cumstance which may have caused the neglect of this pro¬ position. The ego is the summum gmus of cog¬ nition. On¬ tological ge¬ neralisation. announcing it ever felt like a commandment, until its consequences have been seen to be weighty, and its fruits abundant. Here, before us, is a germ which, to the scythe of reason, yields a harvest of inestimable truth. But it seems, at first, to be little better than a barren truism ; hence it has been suf¬ fered to slumber on, pregnant with unsuspected wealth, and charged with a moral sublimity more dread than “all the dread magnificence of heaven.” 9. The ego is the known summum genus of cogni¬ tions — j ust as ens is laid down by logic, or rather by a spurious and perfunctory ontology, as the summum genus of things. Viewed even as a generalisation from experience, the ego may very easily be shown to occupy this position. Lay out of view, as much as possible, all the differences which our manifold cognitions present, and the ego, or oneself, will re¬ main as their common point of agreement or resem¬ blance. This is generalisation — the ascertainment of the one in the many by leaving out of account, as much as possible, the differences, and attending, as exclusively as may be, to the agreements of things. The epistemological must not be confounded with the ontological generalisation ; much mischief has been done by confusing them. We perceive a num¬ ber of living creatures. Overlooking their differ¬ ences, and attending to their agreements, we give the name “ animal ” to the sum of the agreements THEOEY OF KNOWING. 207 observed in these creatures. We perceive a number prop. of vegetable formations. Overlooking their differ- - ences, and attending to their agreements, we give the name of “ plant ” to the sum of these agree¬ ments. Again overlooking the differences, and at¬ tending to the resemblances in animals and plants, we give the name of “ organic ” to the sum of these resemblances. And so on in regard to all other things. By overlooking the differences, and attend¬ ing to the resemblances of singulars, we form a species ; by overlooking the differences, and attend¬ ing to the resemblances of species, we form a genus ; by overlooking the differences, and attending to the resemblance of genera, we form a still higher genus, until we ascend up to ens^ or “ Being,” the highest generalisation of ordinary ontology as described in the common schoolbooks upon logic. With this kind of generalisation we have no concern. It has been pointed out only that it may be carefully dis¬ tinguished from the process now to be described. 10. The epistemological generalisation is alto¬ gether different. It has nothing to do with things, Epistemoio- but only with cognitions of thing^s. W e have a isation is very ^ ® ^ different. number of cognitions of things — cognitions of liv¬ ing creatures, for example. Overlooking the differ¬ ences as much as possible, and attending to the agreements of these cognitions, we give the name of “animal” to the sum of these agreements — not 208 INSTITUTES OF METAPHYSIC. PROP. VII. assigning it, however, to any resemblance in the creatures, but only to a resemblance in our cogni¬ tions of them. And so on as before — the only difference being (and it is a very important one) .that the words expressive of species and genera mark, not the resemblances among things, but the resemblances among cognitions. Thus the word “ animal ” betokens a point or points in which certain of our cognitions agree. So do the words “man” and “tree.” Each of them is the expres¬ sion of agreement among certain of our cognitions. Again, the word “ organic ” denotes a still higher generalisation — records a still higher unity among our cognitions. It indicates a point in which our cognitions of trees resemble our cognitions of ani¬ mals. The word “ body ” expresses a still higher genus of cognition, for it indicates some feature in which our cognitions of trees, our cognitions of ani¬ mals, and our cognitions of stones, all resemble one another. These words, and others like them, stand either for species, or lower or higher genera, not of existence, but of cognition. But none of them ever approaches to the universality which is expressed by the word me. For this term indicates a feature of resemblance, not merely among certain of our cognitions, but among the whole of them — the whole of them, possible as well as actual — the whole of them, past, "present, and to come. All the other resemblances in our cognitions are, from a higher THEOKY OP KNOWING. 209 point of view, regarded as differences. Thus the resemblance in the cognitions expressed by the - word “animal” is a differeoce when set off against the resemhlapce in the cognitions expressed by the word “ tree.” But the resemblance in all our cog¬ nitions, which is properly signified by the word me, ■ can never be converted into a difference. No class, or classes, of my cognitions are distinguished from another class, or classes, by the circumstance that they are mine. This is the very circumstance in which they are all not distinguished from each other — the very point in which the whole of them, whatever their character otherwise may be, are merged in identity. Hence “ oneself,” or the ego, is the summum genus of cognition — the ultimate generalisation beyond which epistemology cannot ascend. And a very different universal this is, from the ordinary abstract universal named ens, which is the logician’s delight. 11. From these remarks it must not be concluded that the ego, considered as the summum genus of The ego not cogmtion, IS a mere generalisation from experience, miisation W ere this the case, it would be destitute of that strict universality and necessity which reason claims for it, as the common element in every possible cognition of every possible intelligence. It is this by a necessary law of all cognition. But every necessary truth of reason, although not dependent o 210 INSTITUTES OF METAPHYSIC. PROP, on experience for its establishment, admits, never- - • theless, of being exhibited as a generalisation from experience ; and accordingly the ego has been exhibited as such in the foregoing observations, in order that its character may be more clearly understood, and its universality more fully appre¬ ciated. 12. One source of perplexity, in studying the Shortcoming Platonic ideas, is the uncertainty whether they are tonic ideas, genera of cognitions or genera of things. Probably they were intended as both — another instance of • ontology running prematurely into the same mould with epistemology. But the confusion signifies little ; for, whether they be understood in reference to cognitions or in reference to things, it is certain . that not one of them represents the highest unity, either of knowledge or of existence. It may be true that the mind cannot have cognitions of trees, unless it carries them up into the higher cognition (or unity) expressed by the genus ‘‘tree.” But neither can the mind have these or any other cog¬ nitions, unless it carries them all up into the still higher cognition, or unity, expressed by the genus “self.” All the other species and genera of cogni¬ tion, expressed, for example, by the words “ man,” “ flower,” “ animal,” “ body,” &c., are mere subordi¬ nate unities, mere abstractions, which have no mean¬ ing, and no presentability to the mind, until carried THEOEY OF KNOWING. 211 up into the higher unity of oneself^ and contem¬ plated by me as my, or by him, whoever the person may be, as his, cognitions. Then only is our cogni¬ tion concrete — that is, real, actual, completed, and comprehensible. When I gaze upon an oak-tree, the concrete indivisible cognition before me consists of the four following items, none of which are cogni¬ tions, but all of which are mere elements of cogni¬ tion : — first, The highest genus of cognition, myself; secondly, A lower genus of cognition, tree; thirdly, A still lower genus, or rather species, of cognition, oak-tree ; and, fourthly. The particular specimen. That is the actual inseparable concretion which exists for thought, whatever may be the actual con¬ cretion which exists in nature — with that we have nothing to do at present. The Platonic ideas appear to fall short of this — the concrete totality of Know¬ ing. They correct to some extent the contradictory inadvertency of ordinary thinking, which, moving in abstractions, supposes that the abstract particular — some merely particular tree, for instance — is cog¬ nisable. It is not more cognisable than the abstract universal, the mere genus “ tree,” or the mere genus “me.” They are only cognisable together. But Plato’s theory of ideas does not completely correct this popular delusion. More plainly stated, the popular inadvertency is this : in dealing with ex¬ ternal objects, we always apparently know and think of less than we really know and think of. The doc- PROP. VII. 212 INSTITUTES OF METAPHYSIC. PROP. VII. Perhaps the ego is the summum ge¬ nus of e.xist- ence as well as of cogni¬ tion. trine of ideas was designed by Plato to correct this contradictory thinking, by pointing out the sup¬ pressed element, which, although really present in cognition, is, for the most part, overlooked. But the doctrine was incomplete, and only partially suc¬ cessful. Plato fell short, as has been said, of the summum genus, the universal constituent of cogni¬ tion — that which we are all intimately familiar with, and usually a good deal concerned about — namely, ourselves. 1.3. In connection with these remarks, this short observation may be made, that the ego having been shown by the epistemological generalisation to be the summum genus of cognition, it may also turn out to be the summum genus of existence; and that thus far, at least. Knowing and Being are coincident. We should thus obtain, not an abstract and unin¬ telligible universal, like ens, but, instead of this, an actual, living, and intelligible universal at the head of all things. We must either suppose this, or fall into the frightful scepticism of holding that the laws of thought bear no sort of analogy to the laws of existence ; that there is no parallelism between them ; and that there can be no true knowledge, in any quarter, of anything which truly fs, but only a false knowledge of that which wears the false semblance of Being. All psychology hangs by a thread over the abyss of this hideous hypothesis. THEORY OF KNOWING. 213 A touch might sever the slender chord, and let her prop. drop. But meanwhile she may remain suspended ; - for the stroke must come from ontology, and not from epistemology, and much has to be done before that stroke can be applied. 14. A few remarks must now be made on the second member of the proposition. If philosophers, The second ^ P r 7 clause of in general, have been at a loss in regard to the con- a" stant and necessary factor of cognition, and unable piX^phy" to name it, they have been quite at home with the liest times, other, though less familiar, element, and have expe¬ rienced no difficulty in declaring what the variable and particular factor, for the most part, is. It is the complement of the phenomena of sense — the whole • system of material things. This is the contingent and particular and fluctuating constituent of cogni¬ tion. Matter is described by the old philosophers, in very plain terms, as that which is always inchoate, . but never completed — as that which has no perma¬ nency — that which is subject to perpetual vicissitude, and afflicted with a chronic and incurable diarrhoea. 15. Here, however, there is still as usual some ground for perplexity, and it is occasioned by the a ground of old cause, the neglect to distinguish between things as known, and things as existent. When the old philosophers talk of material things as fluctuating and evanescent, do they mean that they are fluctu- 214 INSTITUTES OF METAPHYSIC. PROP VII. Demur as to matter being the fluctuat¬ ing in exist¬ ence. ating creatures of existence, or fluctuating objects of cognition ? In other words, is it the existence • of them which is evanescent, or is it the know¬ ledge of them which is evanescent ? Is the gene¬ ration and the corruption which they speak of as the characteristic of all material things, to be un¬ derstood as a cessation and a restoration of Being, or as a cessation and a restoration of Knowing ? 16. It is necessary to come to a right understand¬ ing on this point, because, while the statement may be very readily acquiesced in as an epistemological truth, it must naturally occasion considerable demur if propounded as an ontological tenet. Who can bear to be told, without some preparatory explana¬ tion at least, that a mountain is constantly fluctuat¬ ing, that a forest of oak trees is evanescent, that there is no permanency in a stone, that the chair on which he sits is in a state of perpetual fluidity, and that all things are running away before his eyes? And let it not be supposed that all that such a statement can mean is, that processes of renovation and decay are continually at work over the whole length and breadth of the creation. Such a trivial O remark as that fell not within the scope of Greek observation. Speculation had then a higher aim than to inform people that the earth is continually changing, and that not a minute passes over the grassy fields, or the summer woods, or the wintry THEORY OF KNOWING. 215 shore, without altering the structure of every blade prop. and of every leaf, and the position of every particle - of sand. The statement, if understood in reference to the existence of things, must be held to mean that matter itself, even in its ultimate atoms, has no persistency, no abiding footing in the universe, • either in a compound or in an elementary capacity. But that dogma, thus nakedly presented, could scarcely expect to be welcomed as an article of any man’s philosophical creed. It is untenable, because it is unintelligible. 17. On the other hand, if this announcement be understood, not in reference to the existence of things, itis certainly but in reference to our knowledqe of them, it becomes “gin cog- _ nition. the truest and most intelligible of propositions. A mountain is a fluctuating and evanescent thing — in cognition, because no man is under the necessity of perpetually apprehending it: so is the sea; so is the whole earth, with all its variegated pomp, and the whole heavens, with all their diversified splendour. These things are the vanishing and the transitory in knowledge, because no law declares that they must be unceasingly and everlastingly known. 18. The question is. In which of these applications did the old philosophers intend their declaration to The ow phi- ^ losophers be received ? The fact is, that they intended it to ‘0 be received in both, and the consequence has been. 216 INSTITUTES OF METAPHYSIC. PROP. VII. Moi-e atten¬ tion should have been paid to tlieir assertion that it was the fluctuating in cognition. that it was intelligently accepted in neither. They ran, as has been said, their epistemology into the same mould with their ontology. Their doctrine of Knowing was absorbed in their doctrine of Being ; and their expositors have not been at pains to sepa¬ rate the components of that original fusion. Look¬ ing more to the ontological than to the epistemolo¬ gical aspects of the ancient systems, they have failed to do justice to the opinions which they contain. The case in hand is a striking exemplification of this. By expounding this speculation touching the per¬ petual flux of all material things as an ontological dogma, and by leaving it unexplained as an episte-- mological truth, the commentators on philosophy have done much injury both to the science itself, and to those who were its original cultivators. 19. They ought to have attended more to the epistemological side of this opinion, and then they would have perceived its merit and its truth. They ought to have understood that when the old philo¬ sophers spoke of the incessant generation and cor¬ ruption to which all material things are subject, what they meant to say was, that these things are, at times, the objects of our cognition, and that, at times, they are not so. If this was not the whole, it was at any rate a very important part, of what the early speculators intended to affirm when they pronounced the entire material universe to be of a fluxional character, and in a constantly perishing condition. THEOEY OF KNOWING. 217 Material things are continually dying, and coming prop. alive again, in knowing, if not in being. It is quite - - possible that the existence of these things may catch the infection of fluctuation (if we may so speak) from the fluctuation which is notoriously inherent in the knowledge of them, and that the old philosophers meant to affirm that they had caught this infection, and that they were vanishing existences, as well as vanishing cognitions ; but if so, that was not their fault — nor is it ours. 20. But the only point which calls for considera- - tion and settlement in the first section of our science Matter as the fluctuat- is, whether material things are known^ and can be “s ' tion : ex- known, only as fluctuating and contingent. Whether pi^i^ed. they are so, is no question for the epistemology. In what has been already said, enough perhaps has been advanced to show that they are wholly of this character. The following reiteration may be added. 21. Material things come into, and go out of, our knowledge. Not one of them has the privilege This is the of holding perpetual possession of the mind : a man need not at all times be cognisant even of his ‘“• own body ; and even although it were true that he always was cognisant of this, or of some other ma¬ terial thing, still, inasmuch as reason does not de¬ clare that all cognition is impossible unless some material thing be apprehended, none of them are 218 INSTITUTES OF METAPHYSIC. PROP. VII. A hint as to its fluctua¬ tion in exist¬ ence. fixed as having a necessary place or an absolute perpetuity in cognition. Not one of them is for ever before us, therefore not one of them is the per¬ manent in cognition : not one of them is every¬ where before us, therefore not one of them is the universal in cognition : not one of them is inca¬ pable of being removed from our cognisance, there¬ fore not one of them is the necessary in cognition. And thus the whole material universe is shown ■ without difficulty to be the fluctuating (or non-per¬ manent), the particular (or non-universal), the con¬ tingent (or non-necessary), element of knowledge. And thus far, at least, the doctrine advocated by the older systems is both tenable and true. Viewed ontologically, the inchoation and incessant flux ascribed to matter may be an enigma to the stu¬ dent ; but viewed epistemologically, it need not puzzle him at all. 22. Even viewed ontologically, it need not puzzle him much after all that has been said. If every completed object of cognition must consist of object plus the subject, the object without the subject must be incompleted — that is, inchoate — that is, no possible object of knowledge at all. This is the distressing predicament to which matter per se is reduced by the tactics of speculation ; and this pre¬ dicament is described not unaptly by calling it a flux — or as we have depicted it elsewhere, perhaps THEORY OF KNOWING. 219 more philosophically, as a never-ending redemption of nonsense into sense, and a never-ending relapse - of sense into nonsense. (For further particulars, see Prop. X. ; also Prop. IV., Obs. 16-22.) 23. Turn now to the other factor of cognition — the ego, or oneself — and contrast the perpetuity in The ego as cognition of this element, compared with the incon- fluctuating m ° ^ cognition : stancy of matter. This element does not come into and go out of our knowledge, like a rock, a river, or a tree ; it is always there, and always the same. This factor knows no flux, is obnoxious to no vicis¬ situde. It is the permanent in all our knowledge, because it never entirely disappears : it is the uni¬ versal in all our knowledge, because we are in all our knowledge : it is the necessary in all our know¬ ledge, because no cognisance is possible without this cognisance. The contrast between the two elements, in point of fixedness and fluctuation, is manifest and decided. 24. Seventh counter-proposition. — “ The ego (or mind) is known as a particular or special cognition, seventh and not as the element common to all cognitions ; proposition, in other words, our cognition of ourselves is a mere , particular cognition, just as our cognitions of mate¬ rial things are mere particular cognitions. Thus we have a number of particular cognitions. One of these is the knowledge of self This cognition is 220 INSTITUTES OF METAPHYSIC. PROP. VII. Expresses the contradictory inadvertency of ordinary thinking ; illustration. distinguished from the others, as they are recipro¬ cally distinguished from each other — that is, it is distinguished from them, not by its universality, but by its particularity — not by the circumstance that it is the point of identity in all our cogni¬ tions, but by the circumstance that it is itself a special and completed cognition. The unity in our cognitions (that is, their reduction to a class) is effected, not by the observation that they are our cognitions, but simply by the observation that they are cognitions; in other words, they are formed into a genus, not from their containing and present¬ ing the common and unchangeable element which we call self, but from some other cause which the counter-proposition — finds it difficult, indeed im¬ possible, even to name.” 25. This counter-proposition expresses, more ex¬ plicitly than has yet been done, the inadvertency of ordinary thinking in regard to the cognition or con¬ ception of oneself. Its substance may be readily understood from the following plain illustration : I have the cognition of a book — this is, in the esti¬ mation of my ordinary thinking, a particular and completed cognition. I have the cognition of a tree — that too, in the estimation of my ordinary think¬ ing, is a particular and completed cognition, dis¬ tinct altogether from the first. Again, I have the cognition of myself — this also, in the estimation of THEOEY OF KNOWING. 221 my ordinary thinking, is a particular and com- pleted cognition, distinct from the other two, just - as they are distinct from each other. There cannot be a doubt that this, in our ordinary moods, is the way in which we reckon up the relation which sub¬ sists between ourselves and surrounding things. 26. But this reckoning is at variance both with fact and with reason. It is contradictory ; it im- corrective . illustration. plies that there can be a knowledge of the particular without a knowledge of the universal, a knowledge . of things without a knowledge of me. It never really and truly takes place ; it only appears to take place. The true reckoning is this : the book and “ I ” together constitute a distinct and com¬ pleted cognition. The tree and “ I ” together con¬ stitute another distinct and completed cognition. In short, whatever the things or complexus of things may be, it is always they and ‘‘ I ” together which make up the cognition : but such a cogni¬ tion never is and never can be particular ; it is always a synthesis of the particular (the thing, or rather element, whatever it may be) and the univer¬ sal (the me). When I observe a book, I also ob¬ serve myself ; when I observe a tree, I also observe myself ; when I think of Julius Caesar, I also take note of myself ; and so on (see Prop. II., Obs. 4.) Is not this consideration sufficient to prove, and to make perfectly intelligible, the statement 222 INSTITUTES OF METAPHYSIC. PROP. VII. Psycliology adopts Coun¬ ter-proposi¬ tion VII. that “self’' is the common element, the “universal” in all cognition, and that, therefore, it cannot by any possibility have a particular cognition corre¬ sponding to it, or be known as a particular, as this counter-proposition, the exponent of our inadvertent thinking, maintains. 27. Psychology must be understood to adopt the counter-proposition in all its latitude. Counter-pro¬ position VII. is an inevitable consequent of Counter¬ proposition VI., in which all our cognitions are stated to be, in the first instance at least, particular. How the unity in our cognitions is obtained — how they are reduced to the genus called cognition — is a point which psychology has left altogether unexplained. It is by looking to the resemblances of things, says psychology, and by giving a name to that resem¬ blance, that we reduce things to a genus, or form a class. Very well; one might have expected that psychology would also have told us that it was by looking to the resemblance among cognitions, and by giving a name to that resemblance, that we were able to reduce cognitions to a class ; and further, that the point of resemblance to which the name was given was no other, and could be no other — when the whole of our cognitions were taken into account — than the “me,” the self of each individual knower. But no ; psychology tells us nothing of this kind — teaches no such doctrine — teaches the THEOEY OF KNOWING. 223 very reverse. She holds that the ‘‘me” is a special cognition distinguished numerically from our other - cognitions, just as they are numerically distinct from one another. The common element, in virtue of which our cognitions constitute a class, has ob¬ tained no expression in all the deliverances of psy¬ chology. 28. The most memorable consequence of this blundering procedure on the part of psychology, And is that it has caused her to miss the only argument which has any degree of force or reason in favour “riity!^ of the immateriality of the ego, mind, subject, or • thinking principle. The present and the preceding proposition afford the sole premises from which that conclusion can be deduced ; and therefore psycho¬ logy, having virtually denied both of these premises, is unable to adduce any valid, or even intelligible, . ground in support of her opinion when she advo¬ cates the immateriality of the mind. Here the spiritualist is at fault quite as much as the mate¬ rialist, in so far as reasoning is concerned, as shall be shown in the next proposition and its appen¬ dages. PEOPOSITION VIIL THE EGO IN COGNITION. The e^o cannot be known to be material — that is to say, there is a necessary law of reason which prevents it from being appre¬ hended by the senses. DEMONSTRATION. The ego is known as that which is common to all cognitions, and matter is known as that which is peculiar to some cognitions (Prop. VII.) But that which is known as common to all cognitions cannot be known as that which is peculiar to some cog¬ nitions, without supposing that a thing can be known to be different from what it is known to be, — which supposition is a violation of the law of contradiction (see Introduction, § 28). Therefore the ego cannot be known to be material, &c. ' Or, again ; Matter, in its various forms, is known as the changeable, contingent, and particular element THEOEY OP KNOWING, 225 of cognition (Prop. VII.) Therefore, if tlie ego could be known to be material, it would be known as the changeable, contingent, and particular element of cognition. But the ego is known as the unchange¬ able, necessary, and universal element of cognition (Prop. VII.) Therefore the ego cannot be known to be material, &c. Or, again : Matter, in its various forms, is known as the particular element of cognition. If, there¬ fore, the ego could be known to be material as well as the bodies which it knows, it wmuld be known as some form of the particular element of cognition ; in which case a cognition would be formed, consist¬ ing entirely of the particular constituent of know¬ ledge : (for, of course, no variety in the particular element can ever make it other than particular.) But this supposition contradicts Proposition VI., which declares that every cognition must contain a common or universal, as well as a particular and peculiar constituent. Therefore the ego cannot be known to be material. Or, once more : The universal element of cogni¬ tion is known as such, precisely because it is known as not the particular element ; and conversely the particular element is known as such, precisely be¬ cause it is known as not the universal element. Hence the ego, which is known as the universal element, and matter, which is known as the parti¬ cular element, cannot, either of them, be known to p PROP. VIII. 226 INSTITUTES OF METAPHYSIC. PROP. VIII. A caveat. Important law of knoW' ledge. be the other of them : and therefore the ego cannot be known to be material — or, in other words, that part of every object of cognition which is usually called the subject or oneself, cannot be known to be of the same nature with that part of every object of cognition which is usually called the object. OBSERVATIONS AND EXPLANATIONS. 1. Observe, this proposition does not demonstrate that the mind cannot he material ; it only proves that it cannot he hnoiun to be such. Although in the “Observations and Explanations” appended to the propositions in the first section of our science, re¬ marks, and even conclusions, of an ontological cha¬ racter may be occasionally introduced, the reader is again requested to bear in mind that all that is strictly proved, or attempted to be proved, in the demonstrations, is what is to he known or not to he known — not what is, or is not. 2. This demonstration yields as its result this important law of knowledge, that intelligence, of whatever order it may be, cannot, upon any terms, know itself to be material. Show a man to himself as a material thing ; take out of his brain his pineal gland, or whatever else you please, and, presenting it to him on a plate,* say. That, sir, is you, your * See Southey’s Omniana, vol. ii. p. 2. THEOEY OF KNOWING. 227 ego: the exhibition (supposing it to be possible) would instantly prove that the self so shown was not himself ; because the man would say, — I know myself along with that material thing ; which words would prove that he was cognisant of something over and above the mere material thing, and would prove, moreover, that this additional element (him¬ self) was known by him as the universal constituent of that, and of all his cognitions ; while the element before him, the pineal gland, or whatever else it might be, was known by him as the particular con¬ stituent merely of that cognition : so that to suppose him to know it to be himself would be to suppose him to know that one part of his cognition was another part of his cognition — in other words, that the universal part was the particular part, which, of course, is absurd, and a violation of the first law of reason, which declares that we must know a thing to be what we know it to be. 3. It is at this point that the controversies respecting the materiality and the immateriality of the thinking principle take off from the main trunk of the speculative tree. The eighth counter-propo¬ sition, embodying the inadvertent result of ordinary thinking, and embodying also the doctrine of our popular psychologies, whether these psychologies favour, as some of them do, the materiality, or, as others of them do, the immateriality of the mind, is PROP. VIII. Materiality and imma¬ teriality. Eighth coun¬ ter-proposi¬ tion. 228 INSTITUTES OF METAPHYSIC. PROP. VIII. Eighth coun-' ter-proposi- tion the com¬ mon property of materialist and spiritu¬ alist. this — Eighth counter-proposition : “ The ego might possibly be known to be material. There is no ne¬ cessary law of reason which prevents it from being apprehended by the senses.” 4 This counter-proposition is the common pro¬ perty both of the materialistic and of the spiritual psychologists. The materalist holds that nothing except matter is known : hence he holds that, if the ego or mind is known at all, it is known as material. The only distinction which he acknowledges between mind and matter is, that the one is matter knowing, and the other matter known. Mind is supposed to be either itself a higly-refined species of matter, or else a property of certain kinds or combinations of matter — a mere result of physical organisation. The brain produces intelligence, just as the stomach, or rather some part of the nervous apparatus, produces hunger. At any rate, according to the materialist, there is no necessary law of reason which prevents the mind from being known as matter, or as some sort of dependency on matter. The spiritualist, again, though he denies, as a question of fact, that the mind is known to be material, does not deny this as a question of possibility. His denial does not amount to the assertion, much less to the proof, of Proposition VIII. It is merely a dissuasive, inti¬ mating that it is better, on the whole, to suppose that the mind is not material. A critical remark or THEOEY OF KNOWING. 229 two may be offered both on the materialistic and the spiritualistic conception of mind. 5. Both parties are in error at the outset. They undertake to declare what the mind is, before they have determined what it is known as. The early physiologists gave out that the mind was some kind of aura or finer breath, some highly attenuated species of matter; but they certainly never succeeded in showing that it was known as this. That very important point was prejudged. Their hypothesis was founded upon analogy. Matter was patent to universal observation. All things were seen to be material. Man’s organism was material, — whyshould not his mind, his most intimate self, follow the same analogy, and be material too ? Hence its materiality was assumed. The word, indeed, by which the thinking principle is designated in all languages bears evidence to the inveteracy of the superstition that the conception of mind might be formed by con¬ ceiving a material substance of extreme fineness and tenuity. Many circumstances have conspired to keep this fanaticism in life. The supposed visibility of ghosts helps it on considerably ; and it is still further reinforced by some of the fashionable delira- ments of the day, such as clairvoyance and (even A.D. 1854, credite posteri !) spirit-rapping. These, however, are not to be set down — at least so it is to be hoped — among the normal and catholic supersti- PROP. VIII. Early con¬ ception of mind as raa- teri.al. Ghosts, clairvoyance, spirit-rap¬ ping. 230 INSTITUTES OF METAPHYSIC. tions incident to humanity. They are much worse than the worst form of the doctrine of materiality. These aberrations betoken a perverse and prurient pliiy of the abnormal fancy — groping for the very holy of holies in kennels running with the most senseless and god-abandoned abominations. Our natural superstitions are bad enough ; but thus to make a systematic business of fatuity, imposture, and profanity, and to imagine, all the while, that we are touching on the precincts of God’s spiritual king¬ dom, is unspeakably shocking. The horror and dis¬ grace of such proceedings were never even approached in the darkest days of heathendom and idolatry. Ye who make shattered nerves and depraved sensations the interpreters of truth, the keys which shall unlock the gates of heaven, and open the secrets of futurity — ye who inaugurate disease as the prophet of all wisdom, thus making sin, death, and the devil, the lords paramount of creation — have ye bethought yourselves of the backward and downward course which ye are running into the pit of the bestial and the abhorred? Oh, ye miserable mystics! when will ye know that all God’s truths and all man’s blessings lie in the broad health, in the trodden ways, and in the laughing sunshine of the universe, and that all intellect, all genius, is merely the power of seeing wonders in common things ! 6. The materialistic conception of mind, or the THEOEY OF KNOWING. 231 ego, as a fine or subtle species of matter, is obviously no conception of it at all. Not in this way is the idea - of intelligence to be approached. The conception ^miKs" material sub- of the most gossamerv and sfhostlike tissue that ever stance dis- ° ./ o missed. floated in the dreams of fancy, is not one whit nearer • to the conception of spirit than is the conception of the most solid lead that ever acted as ballast to a seventy-four-gun ship. The mind of man is cer¬ tainly adamant, just as much as it is ether. This conception, therefore, may be dismissed as unworthy of further consideration. 7. The other form of materialism — that which pro¬ nounces the mind to be the result of physical organ- conception , , ^ ^ _ . of mind as isation, (phrenology, in short) — is more plausible, and more difficult to overcome. The particles of matter assume a certain configuration or arrange¬ ment, called the human brain, and intelligence is manifested in consequence, the degrees of which are found generally to be in proportion to the size of the - organ, and the depth and number of its convolu¬ tions. Why, asks the materialist, ought this plain fact to cause more astonishment, or meet with less acquiescence, than any other effect resulting from the various combinations of matter? All that we know of causation is uniform sequence. When cer¬ tain conditions concur, certain results follow. When the material conditions requisite to the development of mind are fulfilled, why should not intelligence 232 INSTITUTES OF METAPHYSIC. PROP, ensue ? They are fulfilled when matter takes that VIII. _ - form which we term a human organisation, and in¬ tellect is put forth accordingly. Mind, or the ego, ' is thus made a result contingent on certain material • combinations. It is subordinated to the body ; it holds its place by a very precarious tenure, and has no absolutely independent status. 8. Is there any weapon in the armoury of spiritu- Thespiri- alism by which this disagreeable conclusion can be tualist’s con¬ ception of effectually rebutted? There is not one, as spiritual- mind is as ^ nlateriaust’s. present provided. In vain does the spirit¬ ualist found an argument for the existence of a sepa¬ rate immaterial* substance on the alleged incompa- ' tibility of the intellectual and the physical pheno¬ mena to coinhere in the same substratum. Materiality may very well stand the brunt of that unshotted broadside. This mild artifice can scarcely expect to be treated as a serious observation. Such an hypo¬ thesis cannot be meant in earnest. Who is to dictate to nature — what phenomena or qualities can inhere in what substances — what effects may result from what causes? Why should not thought be a property or result of matter, just as well as extension, or hard¬ ness, or weight, or digestion, or electricity ? The psychologist must show that this cannot be the case. * The word sub.stance” is here used in the vulgar and erroneous sense of “substratum of qualities.” Its time definition and meaning are given in Propositions XVI., XVII. THEOEY OP KNOWING. 233 either because the supposition contradicts reason, or , because it contradicts experience. If it contradicts - reason, let him point out the contradiction : if it contradicts experience, let him show that it does so. He can do neither ; he never attempts to do either ; and therefore he does not prove, he merely asserts. But the materialist also asserts, and with better reason, in so far as probabilities and plausibilities are concerned. Matter is already in the field as an acknowledged entity — this both parties admit. Mind, considered as an independent entity, is not so clearly and unmistakably in the field. Therefore, on the principle that entities are not to be multiplied with- • out necessity, the defender of immaterialism is not entitled to postulate an unknown basis for the intel¬ lectual phenomena, and an unknown cause for the intellectual effects, so long as it is possible to refer them to the known basis, or to account for them by the known cause, already in existence. Now this possibility has never been disproved on necessary grounds of reason. 9. The fundamental disturbance which oversets the schemes, both of the materialist and of the Both parties .... , . 1 PI p hold mind to spiritualist, and prevents either oi them irom at- be particu- taining to any distinct conception of the mind, is to be found, as has been said, in the circumstance that they attempted to declare what it was, before they had ascertained what it was known as. They 234 INSTITUTES OF METAPHYSIC. PROP. VIII. It is known only as the universal. undertook to settle how or in what capacity it existed, before they had settled how or in what capacity it was known. And hence, being imbued with the opinion that all existence is particular, they made it their aim to determine, or at least to announce, what particular kind or character of existence the mind, or ego, had. The materialist held, as has been said, that it was either some peculiar form of matter, or some peculiar result of material combinations. The immaterialist held that it was at bottom a particular sort of substance different from matter, and therefore to be called immaterial. Differing as they did, they both agreed in holding it to be something 'particular. 10. Whether all existence is particular, and whether the ego is something particular (be it material, or be it immaterial), is a question with which the epistemology has no concern. This sec¬ tion of the science decides only what the ego is known, and not known, as ; and it declares (as it has already declared in Prop. VII.) in emphatic terms, that the ego or mind is not known as any particular thing, either material or immaterial, but is known only as a universal, that is, as the element common to all cognition, and not peculiar to any. The element which every cognition presents, and must present, can have no particularity attaching to it, except the characteristic of absolute univer- THEORY OF IQJOWING. 235 sality. To attempt to conceive it as some particular thing, by affixing to it some peculiar or distinctive - mark, would be to reduce it from universality to particularity — in other words, would be to destroy the conception of mind in the very act of forming it. 11. This observation brings us to close quarters with the fundamental error both of the materialist The material- , , ist*s error and the spiritualist. The fundamental error of the consists in his holding materialist does not consist in his holding the mind, mind to he ^ ^ yarttcxuar, or ego, to be a material substance or a material re¬ sult. That is no doubt wrong ; but the feeding or mother blunder consists in his supposing that it is a 'particular substance or a particular result. It is only through his occupation of the latter position that the materialist is able to maintain with any show of meaning that the mind is some sort of matter, or some sort of dependency on organisation. Whether it is this — whether it be any particular thing or particular dependency — is, as we have said, not the question. It is certain that it cannot be known as such. It can be known only as the universal part, in contradistinction to the particular part, of every cognition. It therefore can be conceived only as this : and every attempt to conceive it as some form of matter, or as some result of matter, must necessarily be a failure, and must terminate in no conception of it at all. A moderate degree of re- 236 INSTITUTES OF METAPHTSIC. PROP. VIII. The spiritual¬ ist’s error consists in his holding mind to be parti¬ cular. flection may convince any one that he can, and does, entertain the conception of himself only as that which is the universal and identical part of all his conceptions and cognitions, and that he cannot form any idea of himself except as this. 12. The error of the spiritualist is of precisely the same character. He holds the ego, or mind, to be an immaterial substance. This also is wrong, as the immaterialist puts it ; because he rests this statement on the assumption that the ego is a ■particular substance. At any rate, it is a mere expenditure of words to which no meaning can be attached. The spiritualist is a torment to mankind fully as much as the materialist, because, undertak¬ ing to teach us what the mind is, he leaves us totally in the dark as to what it is known as ; and the con¬ sequence is, that he fails to teach us what it is, and merely palms off upon us certain crude fancies which enjoy the credit of being somewhat more reputable and orthodox than the tenets of his opponent. There can be no conception of the mind as a particular im¬ material substance, any more than there can be a conception of it as a particular material substance ; because, as has been shown, the only conception of it which is possible is the conception of it as the universal and unchangeable factor in all our cogni¬ tions, — whether these cognitions contain, as their particular factor, phenomena which are material, or THEOEY OF KNOWING. 237 phenomena which are immaterial. If the word immaterial be used as a synonym for universal, it would be quite right to say that the ego was imma¬ terial ; but if it be used to designate anything par¬ ticular, in that case the ego is certainly no more immaterial than it is material. But it is in the latter acceptation that the psychologist employs the term : and hence he is in error. I am not this table, or my own body, or any particular material thing that can be presented to me ; but just as little am I any particular thought, or feeling, that may occur to me. When I think of the death of Julius Csesar, I am not that immaterial thought. When I entertain the feeling of resentment, I am not the resentment which I entertain. I am not the anger or the pain which I experience, any more than I am the chair or the table which I perceive. Caliban, indeed, (in The Tempest), declares that he is “ a cramp ” — an incarnate rheumatism ; but this is a flight of speech — a hyperbole rather poetical than philosophical. Whether a particular material thing or a particular immaterial thought is before me, “ I ” am not the total cognition which I may be dealing with. I am simply known to myself as the universal part of that, and of all my other cogni¬ tions. 13. The error, then, of the materialist consists in the supposition that the mind or self is a particular PROP. VIII. 238 INSTITUTES OF METAPHYSIC. PROP. VIII. The two er¬ rors summed up. Recapitula¬ tion of the institutional proof of im¬ materiality. material thing, or a particular development from material conditions. The error of the immaterialist consists in the supposition that tlie mind or self is a particular immaterial thing. Such statements are mere hypotheses — indeed, mere v^ords, to which no conception is attached. The doom of both is settled by the remark, that the ego cannot be known as a particular thing at all, but only as the One Known in All Known. 14. In conclusion, it is humbly submitted that this eighth proposition, and its demonstration, con¬ stitute the only proof by which the true immateri¬ ality of the mind can be rationally established. The necessity of Propositions VII. and VI., as supply¬ ing the only premises for such a conclusion, must also, it is conceived, be now apparent. These three propositions are the institutes to which every controversy about the materiality or immateriality of the mind must be referred for settlement. A conception of the mind as immaterial can only be attained by, first of all, conceiving it as that which is the universal part, as contradistinguished from all that is the particular part, of every cognition. Hence the necessity of Proposition VII., which fixes the ego as the universal part of all, and matter, in its various forms, as the particular part of some, cognitions. But to establish Proposition VII. it was necessary to show that there is a universal and a THEOEY OF KNOWING. 239 particular part in all cognition. Hence the necessity of Proposition VI., in which that truth is established. These data having been fixed, the conclusion can be logically drawn, as the following short recapitulation will show : First, Every cognition contains a universal part (the same in each), and also a particular part (different in each) — Proposition VI. Second, The ego is the universal part (the same in each) ; matter, in its various forms, is the particular part (different in each) — Proposition YII. Third, Therefore the ego, being the universal part, cannot be the particu¬ lar part of cognition ; and not being the particular part, it cannot be matter, because matter is the par¬ ticular part. Therefore the ego or mind cannot be material, or rather cannot be known as such (Prop. VIII.) ; for it is only as a question of knowing that this subject is at present under consideration. If the word immateriality be understood, as it very well may, in the sense of universality, we may as¬ sert, with perfect truth and propriety, and as a known and proved fact, the immateriality of the mind, ego, or thinking principle. Taken with this explanation, the doctrine advocated in these Insti¬ tutes coincides with the opinion of the spiritualists. But the instant any attempt is made to describe the mind, or oneself, as a particular immaterial sub¬ stance, distinct from another particular kind of sub¬ stance called matter, these Institutes part company with the psychology of immaterialism, and disclaim PROP. VIII. 240 INSTITUTES OF METAPHYSIC. having anything in common with so unthinkable a scheme. Certain difficulties to which the institu¬ tional settlement of the question, and the institu¬ tional construction of the conception, of immateri¬ ality may seem to give rise, shall be explained away in the next article. PEOPOSITION IX. THE EGO PEE SE. The ego, or self, or mind, per se, is, of neces¬ sity, absolutely unknowable. By itself- — that is, in a purely uncleterminate state, or separated from all things, and divested of all thoughts — it is no possible object of cognition. It can know itself only in some particular state, or in uuion with some non-ego ; that is, with some element contradistinguished from itself. DEMONSTRATION. The ego is the element common to all cognition — the universal constituent of knowledge, (Proposi¬ tion VIL) But every cognition must contain a par¬ ticular or peculiar, as well as a common or universal, part, and there can be no knowledge of either of Q 242 INSTITUTES OF METAPHYSIC. i’Roi*. these parts by itself, or prescinded from the other - part (Proposition VI.) Therefore there can be no knowledge of the ego, or self, or mind, per se, or in a purely indeterminate state, or separated from all things, and divested of all thoughts. It can know , itself only in some particular state, or in union with some non-ego ; that is, with some element contra¬ distinguished from itself. OBSEEVATIONS AND EXPLANATIONS. 1. Just as Proposition I. declares that the mind Purport of can be cognisant of something else only when it this proposi- .no i • • • on i • tion in reia- knows itself, SO tliis proposition amrms that it can tion to fro- ^ ^ position I. know itself only when it is cognisant of something else. This statement may appear to give rise to several objections and difficulties which must be obviated and explained. 2. First, In laying down the cognisance of some- An objection tiling different from self as the condition of the started. . , , , „ mind s sell-consciousness, does not this proposition appear to introduce a new primary condition of knowledge, in addition to that which was an¬ nounced in Proposition I. as the one fundamental law ? If the mind must, know itself, as Proposition I. declares, in order to know anything else ; and if, conversely, it must know something else in order to know itself (as this proposition Imports), must not THEORY OF KNOWING. 243 these two laws stand upon an equal footing, and prop. consequently must there not be some mistake or - - confusion in the statement which declares that the one of them (that laid down in Proposition I.) is , the more fundamental and essential of the two ? 8. There is no mistake ; and the apparent confu¬ sion is easily cleared up. The law laid down in objection T • T • ni 111 obviated. Prop. I. as the primary condition of knowledge has an undoubted title to precedence — for this reason, that it names the one thing (to wit, self) which must . be known in order to bring about a cosfnisance of any other thing ; whereas the proposition which an¬ nounces (as Prop. IX. does) that something else must be known in order to bring about a cognisance of self, cannot name what that something else is. This cannot be named in any proposition, because, as has been said, the varieties of the particular ele¬ ment are contingent, indefinite, and inexhaustible. And therefore, although the truth set forth in Prop. IX, is equally certain with that stated in Prop. I., the law of knowledge announced in the latter proposition is entitled to the pre-eminence which has been assigned to it. If a man must know himself, as the condition of his knowing any one, or any number, of ten million things, surely that law would take rank before the converse law, which might declare with equal truth that he must know some (indefinite) one, or more, of these ten 244 INSTITUTES OF METAPHYSIC, PROP. IX. Another objection obviated. million things as the condition of his knowing him¬ self. Besides, the first question of philosophy is, What is the one thing, or rather element, which must he known in order that anything may be known, — what is the one thing known along with all other things? The answer, as we have seen, is — self. But had the question been. What is the one thing which must be known in order that self may be known — what is the other thing known along with self? — the question would have been aimless and unanswerable, because there is no one thing which can be mentioned, or conceived, wTich be known in all knowing of oneself. These reasons may be sufficient to explain the relation which subsists between this proposition and Propo¬ sition I,, and to show that the law stated in the latter has an undoubted right to the priority which has been accorded to it. 4. A second difficulty may be started. The ego must know itself whenever it knows anything ma¬ terial, Does the converse follow — must it know something material whenever it knows itself? No — that is by no means necessary. It must know some¬ thing particular, — it must know itself in some de¬ terminate condition, whenever it has any sort of cognisance, but the particular element need not be material — the determinate state need not embrace any material thing. This objection was sufficiently THEOEY OF KNOWING. 245 guarded against under Proposition VII. (Obs. 2), to which reference is made in order to avoid repetition. - The caveat there introduced is quite sufficient to obviate any charge of materialism which might be brought against this system, on the ground that it makes our cognisance of ourselves to depend on our cognisance of matter. The system steers completely clear of that objection, although it holds unequivo¬ cally that our cognisance of self is dependent on our cognisance of something particular, or of ourselves in some determinate state, and that this is a law binding on intelligence universally. 5. In his Treatise of Human Nature, book i. jrart iv. sec. vi., David Plume says: “For my part, David Hume outgoes when I enter most intimately into what I call my- tiiis proposi- self, I always stumble on some particular perception or other of heat, cold, light or shade, love or hatred, pain or pleasure. I never catch myself at any time without a perception ” — that is, unmodified in any way whatever. This is undoubtedly true. It is what Proposition IX. maintains. But Hume does not stop here ; he goes on to say that he ‘always catches his perceptions without any self. “ I never can observe,"' says he, “ anything hut the perception — in other words, I always observe that the percep¬ tions are not mine, and do not belong to any one ! This is perhaps the hardiest assertion ever hazarded in philosophy. Not content with saying that a man 246 INSTITUTES OF METAPHYSIC. PROP. IX. Wliat til is proposition contends for. Tile mind must always know itself in, but not as, some determinate condition. can never apprehend himself in a purely indeter¬ minate condition, he affirms that a man can never apprehend himself at all. This is certainly carry¬ ing the doctrine of determinate states, mental modi¬ fications, or particular cognitions, to an extreme. Many philosophers, however, to whom the specula¬ tions of Hume were as wormwood, have taught the same doctrine, only iii terms somewhat more dubious and inexplicit. 6. All that this proposition contends for is, that intelligence can be cognisant of itself only when it ■ knows itself in some determinate state, whatever that state may be, or by whatever means it may be brought about. This doctrine is a necessary truth of reason. To suppose that any intelligence can know itself in no particular state, is contradictory ; for this would be equivalent to supposing that it could know itself in no state at all, which again would be equivalent to the supposition that it could know itself without knowing itself. 7. When it is said, however, that the ego can know itself only in or along with some particular modification, this position must be carefully dis- -tincfuished from the assertion that it can know itself as that particular modification. This asser¬ tion would be quite as contradictory as the other — THEOEY OF KNOWING. 247 quite as irrational as the supposition that it could know itself in no determinate state. Because if the ego could know itself as any one particular state, it could never know itself in any other particular state. It would be foreclosed against all variation of know¬ ledge or of thought ; and thus its intelligent nature would be annihilated. In fact, this opinion would be equivalent to the contradictory supposition that the particular could be known without the uni¬ versal, the determinate state without the ego with whom the state was associated. Therefore the ego, although it can be cognisant of itself only in or along with some determinate modification, never knows, and never can know, itself as any, or as all of these modifications. It can only know itself as not any of them — in other words, as the universal which stands unchanged and unabsorbed amid all the fluctuating determinations or diversified parti¬ culars, whether things or thoughts, of which it may be cognisant. Through an inattention to this dis¬ tinction between the knowledge of ourselves in some particular state, and the knowledge of our¬ selves as that particular state, Hume was led into the monstrous paradox noticed above ; and other philosophers (especially Dr Brown) have run their systems aground, and have foundered on the rocks of ambiguity, if not of positive error, in consequence of the same inattention. The dominant doctrine in PKOP. IX. 248 INSTITUTES OF METAPHYSIC. PROP. IX. Ninth conn ter- proposi¬ tion. Its twofold error. psycliology is that the mind is cognisant only of the -variable determinations of which it is i^e subject; and that it is comisant of itself as these. X / / 8. Ninth Counter-proposition. — “ The ego per se is not absolutely, and necessarily, and universally unknowable. We, indeed, are unable, on account of the imperfection of our faculties, to know our¬ selves in a purely indeterminate state. We are ignorant of the essence of the mind ; but other intelligences may not be subject to this restriction, but may be able to know themselves per se.” 9. The opinion expressed in this counter-proposi¬ tion, if not an express article of ordinary thinking, has at any rate been formally adopted and largely insisted on by psychology. But here, again, as in the case of matter per se, psychology is in error in attributing our inability to know ourselves per se to a wrong cause. The psychological blunder is twofold. First, it overlooks a sovereign law bind¬ ing upon all reason — viz., that no intelligence can apprehend itself in a state of pure indetermination ; and, secondly, it refers our inability to perform this feat, not to that supreme and necessary law, but to some special limitation in our faculties of cognition. These may be imperfect enough. But the disability in question (if that be a disability which is one of the prime characteristics of intelligence considered THEOEY OF KNOWING. 249 simply as intelligence) is certainly not due to the cause to which psychology refers it. It is due to the law to which expression was given in Proposi¬ tion VI., namely, that the universal ground or com¬ mon constituent of all knowledge cannot be appre¬ hended by itself, but only in synthesis with some particular. That law is a necessary truth of rea¬ son ; and the law expressed in the present proposi¬ tion is merely one of its inevitable corollaries. 10. At this place it is proper to take some notice of those random skirmishes or stray shots — they can scarcely be called controversies or discussions — which occasionally show themselves in the history of speculation touching what is called the “ essence ” of the mind. And, first of all, it is important to remark the change of meaning which this word has undergone in its transmission from the ancient to the modern schools of philosophy. Formerly the word “ essence " {6vaia) meant that part or charac¬ teristic of anything which threw an intellectual illumination over all the rest of it. It was the point of light, the main peculiarity observable in whatever was presented to the mind. It signified the quality or feature of a thing which made it what it was, and enabled the thing or things in question to be distinguished from all other things. It was a synonym for the superlatively comprehen¬ sible, the superlatively cogitable. Nowadays it PROP. IX. History of word “ es¬ sence.” Its meaning re¬ versed by moderns. 250 INSTITUTES OF METAPHYSIO. I’ROP. means exactly the reverse. It signifies that part - of a thing which carries no light itself, and on whicli no light can be thrown. The “ essence is the point of darkness, the assumed element in all things which is inaccessible to thought or observa¬ tion. It is a synonym for the superlatively incom¬ prehensible, the superlatively incogitable. Other words, as shall be shown hereafter, have been tam¬ pered with in the same way. Consequences of this re¬ versal — in¬ justice to the old philo¬ sophers. 11. No great mischief can ensue from the rever¬ sal of the meaning of a philosophical term, provided those who employ it in its modern signification are aware of the sense in which it was formerly used, and are careful to record the distinction between the two acceptations. No precaution of this kind has been observed in the case of the word “ essence.'" The ancients are supposed by our psychologists to have understood the term in the sense in which they understand it ; and hence the charge has gone forth against them that they prosecuted their in¬ quiries into matters which are inaccessible to the faculties of man and hopelessly incomprehensible. Never was there a more unfounded accusation. They prosecuted their researches, we are told, into the essence of things ; and this, we are assured by a wiser generation of thinkers, lies beyond the limits of human cognition. What you choose to call the essence of things may be of this character, THEOEY OF KNOWING. 251 but not what they called the essence of things. With the old philosophers the essence of things was precisely that part of them of which a clear conception could be formed : with you of the mo¬ dern school it is precisely that part of them of which there can be no conception. AVhether any¬ thing is gained by thus changing the meaning of words, is another question; but certainly it is rather hard treatment dealt out to the early speculators, first to have the meaning of their language reversed by modern psychology, and then to be knocked on the head for carrying on inquiries which are absurd under the new signification, but not at all absurd under the old one. 12. Considered, however, even as a matter of nomenclature, the change is to be deprecated. The reversal has resulted in nothing but confusion, and the propagation of unsound metaphysical doctrine. The essence of the mind, and the mind -per se, are nowadays held to be identical ; and these terms are employed by psychology to express some occult basis or unknown condition of the mind. That the mind per se is absolutely inconceivable (although for a reason very different from that alleged by psychology) is undoubted. But the essence of the mind is, of all things, the most comprehensible. The essence of the mind is simply the knoivledge which it has of itself, along with all that it is cog- PROP. IX. Confusion and error to which the reversal has led. 252 INSTITUTES OF METAPHYSIC. PROP. IX. This propo¬ sition reduces tiie ego per se to a contra¬ diction. nisant of. Whatever makes a thing to be what it is, is properly called its essence. Self-conscious¬ ness, therefore, is the essence of the mind, because it is in virtue of self-consciousness that the mind is the mind — that a man is himself. Deprive him of this characteristic, this fundamental attribute, and he ceases to be an intelligence. He loses his essence. Restore this, ‘and his intelligent character returns. Perhaps these remarks may assist in re¬ storing to the word “essence” its right significa¬ tion, and in dissipating the psychological hallucina¬ tion, that the essence of the mind is inconceivable. 13. It is obvious that this proposition reduces the ego per se to a contradiction — a thing not to be known on any terms by any intelligence — just as Proposition IV. reduced matter per se to the condi¬ tion of a contradiction. But there is this difference between the two contradictories, that the ego car¬ ries within itself the power by which the contradic¬ tion may be overcome, and itself redeemed into the region of the cogitable, out of the region of the con¬ tradictory. It has a power of self-determination, which is no other than the Will. Matter per se, on the other hand, has to look to the ego for the elimination of the contradiction by which it is spell¬ bound. This is a momentous difference, and gives the contradictory ego per se an infinite superiority over the contradictory material universe per se. THEOEY OP KNOWING. 253 The importance of reducing the ego per se to a contradiction, will be apparent in the ontology. 14 The words “ego,” “me,” or “self,” have been repeatedly used in the course of these discus¬ sions, because, awkward and barbarous though they be, they are of a less hypothetical character than any other terms which can be employed to express what is intended. Whatever else a man may be, he is, at any rate — himself. He understands what he means when he utters the word “I,” and, there¬ fore, when such terms as “mind,” or “subject,” or “ intelligence,” are employed in these pages, they are to be regarded as strictly synonymous with this less ambiguous though egotistical monosyllable. 15. The synthesis of the ego (which is the uni¬ versal element of all cognition), and the things whatever they may be, or the mental states what¬ ever they may be (which are the particular element of all cognition), is properly called “the indivi¬ dual.” This is what Leibnitz expresess by the word “monad” — that is, the combination of the singular and the universal, or the soul and its pre¬ sentations wrapt up together, and constituting the independent totality known by each individual in¬ telligence, — the intelligence being a surd without something of which it is intelligent, and this some¬ thing being a surd without the intelligence which PROP. IX. Why the word ego is used in these discussions. The indi¬ vidual or monad. 254 INSTITUTES OF METAPHYSIC. IX PROP, apprehends it. In other words, the individual, or monad, is the universe constituted by oneself, with the addition of the things or thoughts with which oneself is associated. 16. Finally, lest any dissatisfaction should be An objection felt on the two following points, a word of explana- tion may be appended. First, It may be alleged that the demonstration of Proposition VIII. merely proves that the ego must be known as the non¬ material element of cognition, but does not prove that it is known as a completed and non-material existence ; and that this conclusion, therefore, does not appear to be altogether satisfactory. The answer is, that the ego having been proved to be the universal or non-material element of all cogni¬ tion, and matter having been proved to be that which (although it is frequently the other element) does not, of necessity, enter into the composition of cognition at all, the conclusion is that the ego may, at any time, exist in combination with such peculiar elements of cognition (different from the material) as Providence may be pleased to associate it with, or as its own inherent powers may be competent to develop. The ego can never be known as a completed non-material existence, be¬ cause it can be known only as the universal element of all cognition ; but this universal element by itself — that is, dissociated from every particular element THEOKY OF KNOWING. 255 — is absolutely unknowable ; and, therefore, if the prop. reader expects a proof of the existence of himself - as a completed immaterial entity, irrespective of his association with all particular things, and all deter- . minate states, he must for ever be disappointed : at least he can obtain no redress on this point at the hands of speculation ; nor does any redress ap¬ pear to be at all needed. 17. Secondly, It may be said that the doctrine of the absolute unknowableness of the ego ‘per se, and Another its reduction to a contradiction when in this predi- obviated, cament, may have the effect of depriving the mind of its fundamental substantiality ; and that, accord¬ ing to this view, it must be little better than a non¬ entity when in a state of absolute indetermination. The answer is. Who cares although the doctrine has this effect ? Who cares to exist, if he does not exist in some particular way, or in some deter¬ minate condition, or in association with something or other? To find the value of an existence of which there is, and can be, no cognisance, is a pro¬ blem in metaphysical arithmetic which may be left to the psychologists to solve. In the opinion of speculation, such an existence is of no value at all. It seems quite sufficient for every reasonable wish, that a man’s substantial existence should always consist of himself in some determinate con- • dition, or of himself along with something else. All 256 INSTITUTES OF METAPHYSIC. PROP, uneasiness as to the existence of the mind, in so IX. . . ’ ^ - far as it is absolutely unknown, or in so far as it is without thoughts or things present to it, is very much out of place. These reflections may, per¬ haps, have the effect of correcting this prevalent, but misdirected, solicitude. This system, assuredly, opens up a much brighter vista for the futurity of the mind than any which psychology can dis¬ close ; and places its imperishable nature on a much surer basis than any which psychology can establish. PROPOSITION X. SENSE AND INTELLECT. Mere objects of sense can never be objects of cognition ; in otlier words, whatever has a place in the intellect (whatever is known) must contain an element which has had no place in the senses ; or, otherwise expressed, the senses, by themselves, are not competent to place any knowable or intelligible thing before the mind. They are faculties of nonsense, and can present to the mind only the nonsensical or contradictory. DEMONSTEATION. The ego must form a part of every object of cognition (Props. I. II. III.) But the ego can¬ not be apprehended by the senses ; that is, cannot be known as material (Prop. VIII.) Therefore, mere objects of sense can never be objects of cogni¬ tion ; in other words, &c. R 258 INSTITUTES OF METAPHYSIC. OBSERVATIONS AND EXPLANATIONS. 1. The truth of this proposition, although dimly I’jjop. surmised and vaguely contended for in the higher .X . schools of speculation, has never been proved until Comment on , . , „ . drtta of proof now. iwo premises were required for its of this pro- ^ position. it Yifas requisite to show, first, that some one thing, or rather element, must be known along with all the presentations of sense ; and, secondly, that this thing, or element, could not be known as material. These, and only these, are competent data of proof in this case. But no system hitherto propounded has ever distinctly shown what this one thing or element is, or even that there is any such thing or element ; much less has any previous system ever proved that this element could not be known to be material. The data of proof, therefore, were wanting in all previous systems — and, consequently, this proposition, to whatever extent, or in whatever form, it may have been enunciated, has until now remained un demonstrated. iVeither of the two pre¬ mises would, without the other, have been of any avail in proving it. We might show that self must be known along with all the presentations of sense ; but if self could be known as material, or as a presentation of sense, no ground would be - afforded for the inference that mere objects of sense could never be objects of cognition. Again, THEOEY OF KNOWING. 259 we might prove that self could not be known as material, or as a presentation of sense ; hut unless the postulate were also true that self must be known along with all the sensible presentations, we should be equally deprived of a rational ground for our conclusion. But these two premises are now established institutional articles ; and it is conceived that, taken together, they afford an im¬ pregnable demonstration of the proposition before us. 2. Tenth Counter-'pro'position — “ Nihil est in intellectii quod non prius fuit in sensu” — that is, “ Nothing but mere objects of sense can ever be objects of cognition ; in other words, whatever has a place in the intellect can contain only such ele¬ ments as have had a place in the senses : or other¬ wise expressed — the senses, by themselves, and the senses only, are competent to place any knowable or intelligible thing before the mind.” This coun¬ ter-proposition is certainly, in the highest degree, consonant with our natural, or ordinary, or un philo¬ sophical habits of thought. 3. The well-known limitation of this maxim by Leibnitz, who, to the words “ nihil est in intellectu quod non prius fuit in sensu,” added the restriction, nisi ipse intellectus, may, perhaps, deserve a pass¬ ing comment. Had Leibnitz said that intellect PROP. X. Tenth coun¬ ter-proposi¬ tion. I The Leib- nitzian re¬ striction of counter- proposition. 260 INSTITUTES OF METAPHYSIC. PROP. X. Comment on ttie transla¬ tion here given of the counter¬ proposition. must know itself along with all that it apprehends by the aid of the senses, and had he proved that intellect could not know itself as material, his amendment would have been all that could be required to constitute a true proposition. Perhaps this was his meaning ; but if so, it finds no ade¬ quate expression in his words, for these merely declare that nothing is in the intellect (except itself) which was not taken in through the senses — a position which does not prove that the intel¬ lect cannot know itself to be material, and which •does not even affirm that all mere objects of sense are incognisable by intelligence. If the intellect merely is in itself, without being at all times known to itself, mere sensible or material objects — that is, objects known without any subject being known along with them — may very well be ap¬ prehended. The Leibnitzian restriction goes for nothing. 4. The counter-proposition, in its original lan¬ guage, is not altogether unambiguous. The version of it given above is purposely extreme, in order that it may stand forth freed from all equivocation. That the words will bear this interpretation is un¬ doubted. It will be apparent, also, before we have done, that in no other sense will they yield anything like a consistent, or even an intelligible, doctrine ; and that every attempt to qualify them (short of the THEOEY OF KNOWING. 261 correction and subversion which they receive from pimp. Prop. X.) has only resulted in “ confusion worse - confounded.” o. This counter-proposition is erroneous and con¬ tradictory, not only because it atSrms that all our The connter- _ proposition is knowledge is merely sensible, but because it affirms' ^ t/ ^ tradictory, that any of it is merely sensible. It affirms that cepted^wuh- the whole of our cognitions are due to the senses arestucuon.’ solely. No doubt that position is false and contra¬ dictory ; but it is equally false and contradictory, if we suppose it merely to mean that some of our cog¬ nitions are due to the senses solely. Because (by Prop. I.) it has been settled that every one of our cognitions must contain and present an element • (to wit, the me) which (by Prop. VIII.) cannot come through the senses. So that to whatever ex¬ tent the counter-proposition is adopted, it is equally contradictory : it is contradictory if taken in all its latitude ; it is just as contradictory if taken in a more restricted sense. 6. The scholastic brocard, which has been adopted as the tenth counter-proposition, is the fundamental The counter- ^ _ proposition is article in the creed of that school of philosophers founda- ■l tionof“sen- who are called “the sensualists” — no insinuation being implied in this designation, that they are more addicted to carnal indulgences than their op¬ ponents ; but the term being used simply to signify 262 INSTITUTES OP METAPHYSIC. PROP. X. that, in their estimation, the whole mass of human knowledge is ultimately referable to, and originally derived from, the senses. They sometimes take, and get, credit for being the only philosophers who refer our knowledge wholly to experience. All philosophers, however, whatever school they may belong to, do the same, unless Kant is to be con¬ sidered as an exception. In distinguishing between our cognitions, according as they come from with¬ out, or are originated from within, this philosopher seems to refer the former class only to experience. But this is obviously a very arbitrary and unwar¬ rantable limitation of the term. If the mind has any innate, or native, or a priori^ cognitions, these are to be traced to experience (to an experience of their necessity), just as much as its acquired, or a posteriori, knowledge is to be referred to that source. Indeed, it is obvious that all knowledge is itself ex¬ perience, and that the two terms are merely dif¬ ferent names for the same thing. To say that all knowledge comes from experience, is simply to say that all knowledge is knowledge — a tautological truism which admits of no sort of discussion. But to say that all knowledge comes from sensible ex- ‘perience, is to affirm that all knowledge is raere sensible knowledge, and that is a very different position. It is one on which much controversy has been expended. It is exactly the counter-proposi¬ tion which Proposition X. convicts of contradicting THEORY OF KNOWING. 263 two necessary truths of reason, and accordingly prop. subverts. - 7. Psychology has frequently challenged the vali¬ dity of this counter - proposition ; but her efforts The .anti- sensual having been directed merely to its limitation, the psychology ^ merely re- contradiction which it involves has remained uncor- coun^-pio- rected ; for, as has been said, the counter-proposi- feTyes^tte tion is equally contradictory, whether it be taken in uncollected, all its latitude, or under some restriction. The psy¬ chologists have merely rejected it in its broader acceptation. They deny that the whole of our knowledge is derived from the senses, but they con- • cede that some of it is referable to that single source. The psychological limitation is this : It is not true, says the psychologist, that all our cogni¬ tions come to us through the senses ; but it is cer¬ tainly true that some of them are due solely to that source — not meaning that the data furnished by the . senses are mere elements of cognition, but that they are actual cognitions themselves. The anti-sen¬ sualist movement which, for a considerable time past, has shown itself in the philosophy of this coun¬ try, of France, and of Germany, has certainly not ‘ got beyond this qualified repudiation of the scho¬ lastic dogma on which sensualism i^ founded. This qualified repudiation, which is equivalent to a mo¬ dified acceptance, leaves the contradiction precisely where it was. 264 INSTITUTES OP METAPHYSIC. PROP. X. The root of the mischief. History of distinction between sense and intellect. Aim and procedure of Greek meta¬ physics. 8. The root of the mischief is to be found in the obliteration, in modern times, of the cardinal dis¬ tinction between Sense and Intellect which was taken at a very early period by the Greek philoso¬ phers, and which it is most essential to the progress of all definite and well-regulated speculation to restore, and to uphold in its original stringency. , This distinction is perhaps the most important that was ever drawn in philosophy. And, therefore, the history of the various fortunes which it has under¬ gone, and of the controversies and perplexities which have arisen from confounding it, cannot be out of place in a work which professes to furnish the text of all metaphysical annotation. This, too, is the proposition under which the discussion referred to appropriately falls. 9. It has been stated elsewhere (frop. IV., Obs. 20), that the aim of the early Greek metaphysic, in so far as it was of an epistemological character, was the explanation of the conversion of the unintelli¬ gible into the intelligible — of the process through which the unknowable passed into the knowable — of the change which the not-to-be-understood had to undergo in becoming the to -be -understood. Hence it, of course, fixes its starting-point in the absolutely unknowable and unintelligible ; that is, in the contradictory, or, as we should nowadays say, in plainer language, in the utterly nonsensical. To THEOKY OF KNOWING. 265 suppose that the aim of this philosophy was to ex¬ plain how that which was already knowable and intelligible, became knowable and intelligible, would be to impute to it an amount of ineptitude which it was reserved for a much later generation of theorists to incur. This, then, is its problem, to explain how the contradictory becomes comprehensible ; and the following is the way in which it goes to work. It fixes Sense as the faculty of the contra¬ dictory, the faculty of nonsense (Stlraps tov akoyov). This faculty seizes on the nonsensical, the contra¬ dictory, the unintelligible (ra dXoya, or dvorjTo). It lays hold of the material universe per se, and this, in that unsupplemented condition, is the absurd, the senseless, the insane, the incomprehensible to all intellect (to akoyov). The problem, now, is to explain how this world of nonsense, apprehended by this faculty of nonsense, becomes the world of intelligence, the knowable and known universe (rd voriTov). And this conversion is explained by the contribution of some element which Intellect (yov^) supplies out of its own resources, and adds to the world of nonsense, which then, being supplemented by this heterogeneous element, starts out of the night of contradiction into the daylight of com¬ pleted cognition. What this element is these old philosophers did not find it so easy to explain. 10. In dealing with the history of philosophical 266 INSTITUTES OF METAPHYSIC. PROP. X. A rule for the historian ofphilosopliy. This rule observed in these Insti¬ tutes. opinion, the only way to reach clear and satisfac¬ tory results is to begin by giving a philosopher credit, in the first instance, for such tenets as the general scope of his observations appears most to countenance, and afterwards to balance the account by debiting him with such deductions as he may be liable to on the score of ambiguity or imperfect ful¬ filment of his intention ; in fact, by first taking into view his aim as if he had accomplished it, and then by pointing out how far, in his confusion, he may have missed or fallen short of it. On no other principle than this can the behests of a critical his¬ tory of philosophy be fulfilled, or her books kept free from embarrassment. Because merely to ex¬ hibit the efforts of speculative thinking in the crude and inexplicit forms in which they may have been originally propounded, affords no insight into their true import and tendency. No purpose of any kind is answered when the recorder of philosophi¬ cal opinions states, as he is too often in the habit of doing, a confused and ambiguous doctrine in terms equally ambiguous and confused. 11. This being understood, it will be proper to proceed as we have begun, and to lay out the doc¬ trines now under consideration in a distinct and explicit shape, and as if they had been expounded in that shape by the early Greek speculators — for that these doctrines were theirs by implication, and THEORY OP KNOWING. 267 that their aim was such as has been described, however unsteady their procedure may have been, is certain. What abatements may be required will be seen when we come to show forth their ambi¬ guities, and the consequences of these ambiguities on the subsequent progress of speculation. To re¬ sume, then, the thread of the discussion. 12. From what has been already said, it is ob¬ vious that the distinction drawn by the old philo¬ sophers between sense and intellect was as extreme as it is possible to conceive. Not that they re¬ garded sense and intellect as two distinct and separate faculties ; their distinction was more com¬ plete and thorough-going than that. They rather regarded them as two distinct and opposite poles or factors of one and the same faculty, or rather of one and the same mind. Sense was the factor which seized and brought before the mind the unin¬ telligible and nonsensical data which intellect had to transmute into the knowable and known. In that state these data were absolutely incomprehen¬ sible by the mind. They were as yet no objects of cognition. They became objects of cognition only after the intellect, wakening into action, trans¬ ferred over upon them some element of its own, which gave completion to their inchoation. By means of this additional element an object of cogni¬ tion was formed ; and the mind was able to appre- PROP. X. Return to history of distinction between sense and intellect. 2G8 INSTITUTES OF METAPHYSIC. PROP. X. bend it by apprehending the two elements together — the elements, namely, which had been supplied by the senses, and that additional contribution, what¬ ever it was, which intellect had furnished. By this process, which cannot be directly observed while in operation, but only recovered by means of philoso¬ phical reflection, the nonsensical things of sense become the intelligible things of intellect. The material universe assumes the finished character which it presents to the intelligence of all man¬ kind ; it ceases to be incompleted, incomprehen¬ sible, and absurd. The senses, however, have still no dealings with this universe, in so far as it is known or cogitable, but only in so far as it is unin¬ telligible and contradictory. That is particularly to be borne in mind as the very soul of these old philosophies. The senses cannot, even in the smallest degree, execute the office of intellect ; they are occupied only with unmitigated nonsense. Consequently, they can have no share either in redeeming this contradictory — that is, in rendering it intelligible — or in intelligently cognising it when redeemed. Their sole function is to bring it before the intellect, which, however, cannot apprehend it unless it apprehend something else (r6 hepop, ac¬ cording to the old systems ; or itself, according to these Institutes) as well. 13. The following illustration will explain this THEOKY OF KNOWING. 269 position exactly : Let us suppose that the contra- prop. dictory, the anoetic, is more than nothing (0), hut - 1 1 1 • /T \ T> 1 • / 1 Illustration less than anything (1). but this (the more than of early ^ , Greek doc- 0, but less than 1) is what no intellect can appre- hend. That is precisely what the Greek philoso¬ phers affirm ; and they affirm it of the whole sen¬ sible world, considered per se. INIatter, by and in itself, is more than nothing, yet less than one. This is by far the best symbol or figure by which it can be expressed. But that is nonsense and a contradiction. Precisely so. Unless it were non¬ sense, these old philosophers could not have com¬ menced their operations. They had to explain how nonsense becomes sense. They must accord¬ ingly be allowed their nonsense, their contradic¬ tory. If a man has to make clay into bricks, he must at any rate be furnished with clay. Accord¬ ingly, they hold that the whole sensible or material world is nonsense and a contradiction. But non¬ sense cannot be apprehended. True, say they, it cannot be apprehended by the factor or faculty of intellect ; but it can be taken up by that factor of the mind whose special function it is to lay hold of • nonsense ; and this factor is the complement of the , senses. These are specially fitted and commission¬ ed to lay hold of the nonsensical ; they seize upon that which is more than nothing but less than anything ; they bring before intellect the incom¬ prehensible world of matter per se, and having 270 INSTITUTES OF METAPHYSIC. PROP. X. Tlie old philosophers were right in their problem — in then- way of work¬ ing it, and in fixing sense as the faculty of nonsense. done so, intellect then contributes the element which is required to change nonsense into sense ; it adds to that which is more than 0 but less than 1, the additament which is required to make it 1 : it confers on the mere sensible world the element necessary to Its apprehension ; it thus converts the contradictory into the comprehensible, and consti¬ tutes and compasses the intelligible. 14. There can be no question that the old philo¬ sophers were right both in their conception of the true problem of philosophy, and in their manner of working it. The eonversion of the unintelligible into the intelligible — to exhibit how that conver¬ sion is effected was the problem they took in hand ; and this is one of the forms, and one of the very best, in whieh the highest problem of speculation can be presented. Their next step was to find and fix their unintelligible, their contradictory ; be¬ cause if there was no unintelligible, or if it could not be found, of course there was an end both to the problem and to its solution. Accordingly they fixed matter per se as the contradictory. But if this contradictory is to be converted into the non¬ contradictory, it must be brought, in some way or other, before the mind. Their next step, therefore, was to find the means by which this was effected. The senses were held to be these means. The func¬ tion assigned to the senses was that of bringing THEORY OF KNOWING. 271 before the mind that which was absolutely unin- prop. telligible. And thus in tracing back into its his- - tory the distinction between sense and intellect, Ave perceive that, consistently with the character of the problem of the earlier philosophy, and with the method of working it, the senses, although they had to execute a most important function, were fixed, of necessity, as faculties of absolute non- • sense — an opinion with which the doctrine advanced in this tenth proposition entirely coincides. Sense was thus fixed as essentially distinct from intellect. 15. The reason why the truth of this doctrine is not at once obvious is, because, although the mind A reason vvli tlie trutli of always really apprehends more than what the senses this doctrine j u r r 15 ,)ot ob- place before it, still it apparently apprehends no more than what the senses place before it. This, at least, is its predicament in its ordinary moods. Hence, it supposes that the senses place before it, not what is nonsensical, but what is intelligible. . Its own contribution, however, makes all the differ¬ ence. If this were abstracted, the residue must be absolutely incomprehensible, because the addita- rnent in question (the known self) is necessary, not only to the constitution of the knowledge of this or of that order of intelligence, but to the constitution of the knowledge of intelligence universally. If the inferior animals have no cognisance of themselves . (and there is good reason to believe that they have 272 INSTITUTES OF METAPHYSIC. PROP. X. Difficulty and differ¬ ence of opinion as to intellectual element. none, although no opinion is here offered on this point), in that case, with all their senses, they are mere incarnate absurdities, gazing upon unredeemed contradiction. BXfTTOvTes efkfTTOv fiaTrjv, k\vovt€S ovk rjKOVOV' Prom., 447. 16. The old philosophers experienced more diffi¬ culty in determining the character of the other men¬ tal factor — the office, namely, of intellect as con¬ trasted with sense — and in explaining the nature of the intellectual element which changes chaos into cosmos, the supplement which converts a world rolling in contradictory nonsense (the whole ma¬ terial universe 'per se) into a world radiant with beauty, order, and intelligence. According to Py¬ thagoras, this conversion was effected by means of “numbers,^’ a pure contribution of intellect. Ac¬ cording to Plato, it was effected by means of “ ideas.” According to these Institutes, it is accomplished by the me being always of necessity apprehended along with whatever is apprehended. This is the light of chaos, the harmoniser of contradictory dis¬ cord — the orderer of unutterable disorder — the source both of unity and plurality — the only trans- muter of senselessness into sense. The three sys¬ tems agree in this respect, that the intellectual element is a “ universal and that the sensible element is a “singular” or “particular” — only THEOEY OF KNOWING. 273 there is this difference as to what the universal prop. X. is : with Pythagoras it was “ number ; ” with Plato it - was “ idea ; ” with this system it is the “ ego.” 17. Having thus stated the doctrine of the early speculators in distinct and explicit terms, we have ^imbiguities ^ . of the old now to balance the account. Considerable deduc- piiuosophers. tions must be made on the score of ambiguity and confusion, although not to such an extent as to throw the smallest suspicion on the accuracy of the exposition just given of their views, in so far as intention and aim are concerned. The old philo¬ sophers did not explain themselves at all clearly. • Their problem was not distinctly enunciated ; and what was still more misleading, instead of calling sense the faculty of nonsense, which was unquestion- . ably their meaning, they laid it down simply as the faculty of sense; and instead of calling sensible things nonsensical things, they were usually satisfied with, calling them sensible things, or at least they were not at pains to announce with unmistakable pre¬ cision that sensible things (ra maB-qra) are strictly identical with senseless or contradictory things (ra uvoqra.'^ 18. Out of these ambiguities the three following leading misconceptions have arisen — mistakes which, Three mis¬ conceptions now pervading the whole body of speculative science, out have rendered the study of metaphysic a discipline S 274 INSTITUTES OF METAPHYSIG. PROP. X. of distraction, instead of what it ought to he, an ■ exercise of clear and systematic thinking. Firsts The problem having been obscurely expressed, suc¬ ceeding philosophers have taken it up, as if the question for consideration was. How does the in¬ telligible become intelligible ? not. How does the unintelligible become intelligible? Intimately con¬ nected with this misconception are the other two. Secondly, Sense, not having been fixed with suffi¬ cient precision as the faculty of nonsense, came to ' be regarded as a kind of intellect. Of course, if it is not altogether a senseless or nonsensical capacity, it must be to some extent an intellectual power. The ambiguity in the old speculations allowed sense to be regarded as a sort of cognitive endowment, or, at any rate, as possessing, to some extent, a capacity of cognition. And, accordingly, as such it is now actually fixed by the whole psychology at present in vogue. No pains, at least, are taken by any exist¬ ing system to guard against this misconception. Thirdly, Sensible things not having been laid ^ down by the old philosophers with sufficient distinctness as absolutely nonsensical and contradictory things, came, in the course of time, to be looked upon as a kind of intelligible things ; for, of course, whatever is not thoroughly nonsensical must be, in some way, and to some extent, comprehensible. 19. These three misconceptions, and their baneful THEOEY OF KNOWING. 275 effects on the growth of philosophy, must be noticed prop. _ somewhat more particularly. First, The true and - • • 1 11 TT 1 1 • IT -1 1 Comment or original problem was, How does the unintelligible, firstmiscon- the nonsensical, or, in the language of the old schools, “the sensible,'’ become the intelligible ? In other words, how is knowing effected ? — what is • knowable and known ? That, more than two thou¬ sand years ago, was the leading question of philo¬ sophy (in so far as philosophy was epistemological, and not ontological), as it still is of these Institutes. But owing to some indistinctness in the original enunciation, this problem has been converted into the very futile inquiry. How does the intelligible become the intelligible ? how does that which is knowable and known, become that which is know- able and known ? how does something become what it already is ? This is the problem of philosophy as now entertained by the cultivators of psychology, in so far as psychology ventures into the region of the higher metaphysics. The material universe is assumed to be that which is already intelligible, and non-contradictory in itself ; and no sooner is it confronted with a precipient mind than a cognisance . of it takes place. That statement is held nowadays to be sound philosophy — to be information which a man is not only entitled to communicate, but to be paid for communicating ! 20. The second misconception is of a piece with INSTITUTES OF METAPHYSIC. 27 G PTOP. the first. The two hang inseparably together. - -The psychologists, those arch-corrupters of philo- second mis- sopliy, havo coiifounded the old distinction between conception. sense and intellect, by supposing that sense was to some extent invested with the functions of intellect. Whether they conceived that the material universe l)er se was to some extent intelligible, because the senses were a sort of intellect capable of cognising it, or, conversely, that the senses were a sort of intellect capable of this cognisance, because the material universe per se was to some extent intel¬ ligible, is a point not worth inquiring into. Cer¬ tain it is that these two positions go together in the ordinary books upon psychology. Matter, or its qualities at least, are held to be cognisable per 'se, and the senses are held to be, in their own way, a sort of cognitive power — a kind of intellect. But if the senses are a sort of intellect, what sort of in¬ tellect is intellect ? If the senses execute the office of the intellect, what function has the intellect to perform ? If the senses are promoted into the place • of the intellect, the intellect must go elsewhere — it must “move on.” If the senses are it, and execute its work, it must be something else, and must exe¬ cute some other work. What that something else is, and what that other work is, no mortal psycho¬ logist has ever told, or ever can tell. The curse of an everlasting darkness rests upon all his labours. The attempt, indeed, to face systems which, while THEOEY OF KNOWING. 277 they profess to distinguish the mental functions and prop, faculties, thus hopelessly confuse them, is to encoun- - ter a prospect too alarming for the eye of reason to contemplate. 21. Worse remains to be told. Thirdlj, if the data of sense, the sensibles of the older schools comment on third mis- [aLddrjTa, sensibilia) are construed by psychology as a conception, sort of intelligibles, pray what are the intelligibles of these older systems ? (wTjra, intelligibilia). If the sensibles are advanced into the place of the intelli¬ gibles, the intelligibles must be translated into something else. What is that something else ? Nobody knows, and nobody can know ; for there is nothing else for them to be. Yet the whole philo¬ sophical world has been hunting, day and night, after these elusory phantoms through eighty gene¬ rations of men. We have had expositors of Plato, commentator after commentator, talking of their great master’s super-sensible world as something very sublime — something very different from the sensible world in which the lot of us poor ordinary mortals is cast — insinuating, moreover, that they had got a glimpse of this grand supra-mundane territory. Bank impostors. Not one of them ever saw so much as the fringes of its borders ; for there is no such world for them to see ; and Plato never referred them to any such incomprehensible sphere. This terra incognita is a mere dream — a fable, a 278 INSTITUTES OP METAPHYSIC. PROP, blunder of their own invention. Plato's intelli- X. - gihle %vorld is our sensible world. We shall see by-and-by in the Ontology that this announcement may require a very slight modification, but one so slight that meanwhile it may be proclaimed, in the broadest terms, that Plato’s intelligible or super¬ sensible is our sensible world — just the material universe which we see and hear and handle : this, . and nothing but this, is Plato’s ideal and intelli¬ gible home. But then, — his sensible world must be moved a peg downwards. It must be thrust down into the regions of nonsense. It must be called, as we have properly called it, and as he cer¬ tainly meant to call, and sometimes did call it, the . nonsensical world, the world of j)ure infatuation, of downright contradiction, of unalloyed absurdity ; and this the whole material universe is, when divorced from the element which makes it a know- able and cogitable thing. Take away from the understood the element which renders it under- standible, and nonsense must remain behind. Take away from the intelligible world — that is, from the system of things by which we are sur¬ rounded — the essential element which enables us, and all intelligence, to know and apprehend it, and it must lapse into utter and unutterable absurdity. It becomes — not nothing — remember that — not no¬ thing, for nothing, just as much as thing, requires the presence of the element which we have supposed THEORY OF KNOWING. 279 to be withdrawn; but it becomes more than nothing, yet less than anything ; * what the logicians term “ an excluded middle."’ The material world is not annihilated when the intelligible element is with¬ drawn — as some rash and short-sighted idealists seem inclined to suppose. Very far from that ; but it is worse, or rather better, than annihilated : it is reduced to the predicament of a contradiction, and banished to the purgatory of nonsense. 22. Understand by Plato’s sensible world (ro aicrSrjTov, to uXoyov, to avor]TOV, to ycyv6[j.fvov) the absolutely incomprehensible and contradictory, and under¬ stand by his intelligible or real world (t6 ovTag w) the sensible -world as we now actually behold it, and his whole philosophy becomes luminous and plain. (This statement may require, as has been said, a slight qualification hereafter). But understand by his sensible world what we mean by the sensible world, and the case becomes altogether hopeless, confused beyond all extrication. Because, what then is his intelligible world ? A thing not to be explained, either by himself, or by any man of woman born. There cannot be a doubt that his * This is precisely what is meant by the term yt.yv6ii.evov. Fty- veadat means to become — that is, to be becoming something — that is, to be in the transition between nothing and something — that is, to be more than nothing, but less than anything. (Compare what is said about the fluxional character of material things. Prop. VII. Obss. 14, etseq.) PROP. X. Key to the Greek phi¬ losophy. 280 INSTITUTES OF METAPHYSIC. PKOP. sensible world is the world with the element of all X. - intelligibility taken out ; but that must be appro¬ priately termed the nonsensical or unintelligible world ; and just as little can there be any doubt that his intelligible world is the world with the element of all intelligibility put in ; but this is what we, nowadays, usually call the sensible world. So that, to preserve the relation between the two terms, in the sense in which Plato understood them — indeed, to understand the relation in the only acceptation in which it can be understood — we must bear in mind that the contrast which, in his phrase¬ ology, was indicated by the words sensible and in¬ telligible^ must be signalised, in modern speech, by the terms nonsensical and sensible, for the latter word is used nowadays very generally, instead of the word “ intelligible.” These remarks supply a key, and the only key, to the entire philosophy of ancient Greece. This key, however, seems to have heen mislaid until now. If this is denied, the de¬ nier must be prepared to point out some place in any book, ancient or modern, in which one intelli¬ gible word is uttered about Plato’s intelligible world. When that is done, this presumptive claim shall be relinquished, and the key given up to its proper owner. 23. We have now got to the root of the sensual¬ ist maxim which constitutes Counter-proposition X. THEOEY OF KNOWING. 281 It is founded on the obliteration of the distinction which, at an early period, was drawn, although not very clearly, between sense and intellect. If this distinction be not kept up in all its stringency — that is to say, unless it be held that the functions of the two are altogether disparate, and that the senses are totally incompetent to execute the office of intelligence — the distinction had much better be abandoned. This is what the extreme sensualists maintain. The doctrine had been continually gain¬ ing ground, either 'per incuriam^ or by design, that the senses were to some extent intellectual, were capable of cognition, or were competent to place in¬ telligible data before the mind. But if sense can act as intellect, what is the use of intellect — why any intellect at all ? If sense can intelligently ap¬ prehend anything, why can it not intelligently ap¬ prehend everything ? Let man diligently cultivate his senses, and his advances in knowledge shall be immense. And why not ? All that is wanted is a commencement. This is found in the admission that the*senses possess an inherent tincture, a nas¬ cent capacity, of intelligence. Their data are not in themselves nonsensical. Once adm.it this, and the plea of intellect is at an end. Why multiply faculties without necessity ? These considerations led by degrees to the adoption of the counter-pro¬ position in all its latitude. All cognition was held to be mere sensation, and all intellect was sense. PROP. X. Return to counter-pro¬ position. It is founded on a confusion of the dis¬ tinction be¬ tween sense and intellect. 282 INSTITUTES OF METAPHYSIC. PROP. X. The Lockian and the Kantian psychology in limiting the counter-pro¬ position effect no subversion of sensualism. The logic of the extreme sensualists is impregnable on the ground which they assume, to wit, the con¬ cession, that the senses are not altogether faculties of nonsense. How is their argument to be met ? 24. Not, certainly, by the psychological assertion, that the senses are not so intelligent as the intel¬ lect, that the intellect is more intelligent than the senses. This sorry plea, which reduces the distinc¬ tion between sense and intellect to a mere differ¬ ence of degree, and relinquishes it as an absolute difference of nature, has done no good, but much harm, by adding confusion to what before was only error. It is indeed the very plea on which the whole strength of sensualism is founded — only sen¬ sualism has the advantage in this respect, that by carrying the doctrine forth to its legitimate issue — in other words, by obliterating the distinction com¬ pletely — it eliminates the confusion, retaining only the error. It is unnecessary to argue against so futile a doctrine, although the whole psychological fraternity have embraced it. Considered as a bul¬ wark against even the most extreme sensualism, its impotence is too obvious to require to be pointed out. A lower order of intellect, which is sense, and a higher order of sense, which is intellect, — not assuredly in that perplexed way is our mental economy administered. Nature, under Providence, works by finer means than the clumsy expedients THEOEY OF KNOWING. 283 which psychology gives her credit for. If we must have error, let us have it uncomplicated with con¬ fusion. If we must have sensualism, let us have it clear and undiluted. Vain are all the compromises of psychology — worse than vain, for they make error doubly obnoxious by rendering it plausible. In vain did Locke, whose hand it chiefly was, in modern times, that let loose the flood of sensualism — in vain did he make a stand in defence of the degraded intellect. A protest is impotent against a principle, and his own principle condemned him. He had acknowledged sense as an intellectual power ; and hence, with all his saving clauses, he was swept away before the roaring torrent. In vain did Kant endeavour to stem the flood. He, too, had admitted that the senses, if they did not supply perfect cognitions, furnished, at any rate, some sort of intelligible data to the mind : so down he went, with all his categories, into the vor¬ tices of sensualism. 25. It may seem unfair to class Kant among the sensualists, of whom he was so unflinching an op¬ ponent. Nevertheless, the classification is correct. Many a philosopher lends unintentional support to the very doctrine he strenuously denounces, and un¬ intentional opposition to the very doctrine he strenu¬ ously recommends. Thus has it been with Kant. The inconsistency would not signify were it not PROP. X. Kant’s doc¬ trine impo¬ tent against sensualism. 284 INSTITUTES OF METAPHYSIC. PEOP. X. vital. But in Kant’s case the inconsistency is vital : it touches an essential part ; it saps the foun¬ dation of his system. Kant’s error, when traced to its source, is to be found in his refusal to assume, as his foundation, some necessary truth of reason — some law binding on intelligence, simply considered as such. In consequence of this deliberate neglect, he was unable to fix ‘'things in themselves"” [dinge an sich) as contradictory. Hence, if things in them¬ selves (matter per se) are not contradictory, the sen¬ sible impressions — the intuitions, as he calls them — to which these things give rise, need not be contra¬ dictory either. But if they are not contradictory, they must, when presented to the mind, be, to some extent at least, intelligible. At any rate, when sup¬ plemented by the intuition of space, which Kant calls the form of the sensory, and which he regards as a pure mental contribution, they must present some apprehensible appearance. This, accordingly, is Kant’s doctrine. The sensible intuitions, though at first scattered, disjointed, and undigested, are not altogether nonsensical. They are in some degree intelligible. They are merely reduced to a higher degree of order and luminosity when united to the form of the sensory (space), and subjugated to the categories of the understanding. If this be a mis¬ conception of Kant’s doctrine, it is one which he has been at no pains to guard against. At all events, whatever Kant may have intended to say THEOEY OF KNOWING. 285 (and the evidence that he did intend to say it is very insufficient), he has certainly not said that the sensible intuitions, the space in which they are con¬ tained, together with all the mental categories that may be applied to them, are, one and all of them, absolutely contradictory and absurd, unless the me is known along with them. But unless Kant main¬ tained that position, he effected no subversion of sensualism. Unless he held that sense, considered simply as such, is a faculty of nonsense, and that the sensible data, considered simply as such, are contradictory, he did nothing to uphold the essen¬ tial distinction between sense and intellect. This, however, he does not appear to have held. He re¬ garded the distinction, not as a difference of nature, but as a mere difference of degree. But this is to obliterate the distinction. A small man is as much a man as a big man ; and a small or inferior cogni¬ tive power (sense, according to Kant) is as much a cognitive power as a great or superior cognitive power (intellect, according to Kant). The only true opposition is between intellect and non-intel¬ lect. Intellect is intelligent, and its objects are intelligible. Sense is non -intelligent, and its ob¬ jects are nonsensical. All knowledge is intellectual knowledo^e — mere sensible knowledge is a contra- diction. This is the only distinction between sense and intellect which is a distinction, or which can be understood. It is the only ground on which sen- PRor. X. 286 INSTITUTES OP METAPHYSIC. PROP, sualism can be effectually overthrown. The other - distinction is a distinction without a difference — one which cannot be understood, and which leaves sensualism standing as before. 26. These remarks may be sufficient to establish The stale- the correctness of the statement made in Observa- ment in par. 4 and the tion 4 that every attempt to qualify or restrict the &e’ou?by counter-proposition short of its subversion by Pro- reLarks’°'”^ position X., has Only had the effect of adding con¬ fusion to error, (for what has been proved in regard to Kant, may very well be assumed in regard to other psychologists), and that the scholastic maxim, if accepted at all, ought to be accejoted in all its lati¬ tude. They also bear out the charge advanced in Observation 7, that the anti-sensual psychology of Kant and others has left the contradiction involved in sensuali.sm uncorrected. This contradiction con¬ sists not merely in the assertion that the data of sense are alone intelligible to the mind, but in the opinion that any of these data are at all intelligible to the mind before the mind has supplemented them with itself, and apprehended, not them, but the synthesis of them and itself. This opinion is nowhere distinctly overthrown by the philosophy of Kant ; and therefore our conclusion is, that in¬ stead of his system having destroyed sensualism, • the sensualism latent in his system has rather destroyed it. THEOKY OF KNOWING. 287 PROP. X. 27. It must be confessed, however, that Kant is sometimes very nearly right. All that he wanted p ^ ^ , • • 1 I'll J 'Kant some- was a hrm grasp ot the principle, which he seems at times nearly times to have got hold of, namely, that the senses ens through ® ’ J ’ a neglect of supplied no cognitions, but mere elements of cogni- tion. This principle necessarily fixes the sensible elements of cognition as contradictory — as data not to be known on any terms by any intelligence when placed out of relation to the me, the other comple- mental element of all cognition. Here, however, Kant would have been hampered by the fetters of his own system ; for, indulging in an unwarrantable hypothesis, he denies the strict universality and ne- ' cessity of any Intellectual law, (that is, its necessity and universality in relation to intelligence, con¬ sidered simply as intelligence). So that he could scarcely have profited by the principle referred to, even if he had adhered to it with unflinching con¬ sistency, which he certainly does not. He falls just as often, perhaps oftener, over into the counter¬ statement, that the sensible intuitions are not mere elements, but are a kind of cognition. In fact, it is evident that the misinterpretation of the Platonic analysis, in which elements were mistaken for kinds, and which, as we have seen, (see Prop. VI.), has played such havoc in philosophy generally, has car¬ ried its direful influence even into the psychological museum of Kant, and exhibits its fatal presence in all his elaborate preparations. 288 INSTITUTES OF METAPHYSIC. PROP. X. The true compromise between Sense and Intellect. 28. It may appear to some that psychology, in adopting the counter-proposition with the qualifica¬ tion that sense is, to some extent, or within certain limits, a cognitive faculty, has wisely steered a middle course between two extremes, by which the Scylla of an excessive sensualism is avoided on the one hand, and the Charybdis of an extravagant in- tellectualism on the other. The truth, however, is, that the compromise here attempted is one which leads inevitably to an extreme, and runs psycho- logy, as might be shown from the history of this pretended science, into one or other of the very excesses which she is anxious to avoid. Modera¬ tion — compromise is the essence of all that is good ; it is merely another name for order ; it is the means by which Providence itself works. But the com¬ promise, if it is to be true and effectual, and a pre¬ servative against extremes, must be one of nature’s forming, and not of man’s manufacturing. It must be brought about by natural laws, and not by arti¬ ficial conjectures. All our knowledge is itself the result of a compromise between sense and intellect — two endowments, each of which is impotent with¬ out the other. And, therefore, to affirm that sense alone, or that intellect alone, is capable of affording cognition, or that either by itself can place anything but contradiction before the mind, is to supersede the natural compromise, and to set up a new one, which is a mere figment of the fancy. This is not moderation ; this is not steering a safe via THEOEY OF KNOWING, 289 media. This kind of compromise is not the com¬ promise which nature has set on foot. This tam¬ pering with the truth is the initiatory step which, if once taken, is sure to land us in the perdition of an extreme. Because, if sense, uncompanioned by intellect, can furnish any knowledge, why can it not furnish all knowledge, to the mind? That smashing question supersedes intellect, and an ex¬ travagant sensualism is enthroned. Again, if in¬ tellect, unaided by the senses (that is, by certain modes of apprehension, either the same as, or dif¬ ferent from, ours), can supply any knowledge to the mind, why need it look to the senses for any of the materials of cognition ? An excessive intellectual- ism a wild idealism — is the result ; and a subjec- ’ tive phantasmagoria of shadows usurps the place of ■ a real and richly-diversified creation. In point of fact, philosophy has, ere now, been hurried into these two extremes — a consequence entirely attri¬ butable to the circumstance that, losing sight of the natural compromise hetweem sense and intellect, she has supposed that this compromise was effected within each of them ; that is to say, that each of them was capable, in its own way, of cognition. The only safe opinion to hold is, that the two con¬ stitute one capacity of cognition, and can bring knowledge to the mind only when in joint opera¬ tion. — (For further information, see Prop. XVII., and, in particular, Obs. 21 et seq.) T PROP. X. PROPOSITION XL PEESENTATION AND EEPRESENTATION, That alone can be represented in thought which can be presented in knowledge : in other words, it is impossible to think what it is impossible to know ; or, more explicitly, it is impossible to think that of which knowledge has supplied, and can supply, no sort of type. DEMONSTRATION. Representation is the iteration in thought of what was formerly presented in knowledge. It is therefore a contradiction to suppose that what never was, and never can be, known, can be iterated or represented in thought. Repetition necessarily im¬ plies a foregone lesson. Therefore that alone can be represented in thought which can be presented in knowledge ; in other words, it is impossible to think what it is impossible to know ; — it is impos¬ sible to think that of which knowledge has supplied, and can supply, no sort of type. THEOEY OP KNOWING. 291 OBSEKVATIONS AND EXPLANATIONS. 1. In this proposition a distinction is laid down between knowing and thinking — between cognition and conception. This distinction is necessary in order to unearth the verdicts of common opinion and of psychological science from the burrows into which they may run, when dislodged from their usual positions by the cannonade of the preceding propositions. When the articles specified in these propositions, and particularly in IV., Y., and IX., are proved to be altogether unknowdble, common opinion and psychological science may perhaps con¬ cede this, and yet may entertain the supposition that they are not absolutely unthinkable. Hence, lest it should be supposed that thought is com¬ petent to represent what cognition is incompetent to present, and that the absolute unknowables have thus another chance of being, in some way or other, the objects of the mind, it has been deemed ne¬ cessary to introduce this and the following proposi¬ tion for the purpose of destroying that opinion, and of pursuing the unknowables, not into their ultimate place of refuge (for, as we shall find in the agnoio- fbey have still another hiding-quarter into which they must be followed and slaughtered by the sword of necessary truth), but into their pen¬ ultimate citadel of shelter. This dialectical opera¬ tion will unfold itself in the next proposition. PROP. XI, Why this proposition is introduced. 292 INSTITUTES OF METAPHYSIC. PROP. Meanwhile all that is necessary to bear in mind XI. . ... . - is the distinction between knowing and thinking, cognition and conception, presentation and repre¬ sentation, which is laid down in the following paragraph. 2. The term knowledge might be used, and some- Distinction times is used, in this work, in a general way, to sig- between • /* i i • • • • i knowing and niij Doth any givon presentation or cognition at the time when it is actually experienced, and the subse- ' quent thought or representation or remembrance of such experienced presentation. But at present the distinction to be signalised is this : The word know¬ ledge or knowing is employed to express our ori- . ginal experiences — the perceptions, for example, which we have of things when they are actually before us ; and the word thought, or thinking, is employed to express our subsequent experience — that is, our representation or cogitation of that pre¬ vious knowledge. To know, then, is to experience . a perception or presentation of any kind in the first instance, or at first hand ; to think is to revive such . perception at a subsequent period, or to have it at second hand. 8. This proposition, and not the scholastic bro- card which forms the tenth counter-proposition, is the foundation of a true philosophy of experience. The scholastic dogma is false and contradictory. It THEOEY OF KNOWING. 293 affirms that the mind can think of nothino^ but prop. mere objects of sense ; but the truth is, that the - - - mind cannot think at all of mere objects of sense, non tbeXun It is, however, an undoubted truth that the mind can think only of what it can know or experience. For suppose it could think of something, at first hand, which it had never known ; in that case the thing would be merely a known, instead of being a thought, thing ; and the truth of the proposition would be in no degree compromised. It is impos¬ sible for any intelligence to take at second hand what it never had at first hand, because, whenever ’ this happened, the thing so taken would be no longer taken at second, but at first, hand ; instead of being thought, it would be known, and the law expressed in this proposition would be vindicated all the same. This is the whole truth of the phi¬ losophy which makes experience the source and mother of all that the mind of man can conceive. 4. The law which declares that representation must copy the data of presentation — that thought Representa- can walk only in the footsteps of an antecedent insuperable knowledge — is, in certain respects, not to be inter¬ preted too strictly. Thought can alter the arrange¬ ment of the data of experience. It can mould the materials of knowledge into new combinations. This is called the play of the imagination, which at pleasure can fabricate representations of which 294 INSTITUTES OF METAPHYSIC. PROP. XI. First restric¬ tion by way of addition. Second by way of sub¬ traction. experience has furnished no exact type or pattern. Moreover, when knowledge has supplied thought with a single type or model of any kind, it can conceive other cases of that type or model, though these should never fall under its direct knowledge or observation. It can conceive the type of which one example has been submitted to it, repeated ad infinitum, and with certain variations. And, further, supposing intelligences different from ours to exist, we can conceive them both to know and to think much which is inconceivable to us. But still in all its dealings with knowledge — in all its cuttings and carvings upon the data of experience — our thought, and all thought, is subject to the two following restrictions, which cannot be, in the slightest degree, transgressed. 5. The first restriction to which all thought or representation is subject is this: Thought cannot transcend knowledge so as to invent any entire and absolute novelty. It cannot add to the data of experience anything of which knowledge or ex¬ perience cannot possibly furnish any sort of type, either direct or remote. Thought cannot create any element beyond what might possibly be given in knowledge or experience. The second restriction is this : Thought cannot so transgress knowledge as entirely to leave out, or abolish, any element which is essential to the constitution of original THEOKY OF KNOWING. 295 cognition, of antecedent experience. The two re- strictions may be stated thus : Thought cannot - transcend knowledge — representation cannot go be¬ yond presentation, in the way of adding to the ma¬ terials of knowledge any element absolutely new ; nor can thought transgress experience in the way of subtracting from the materials of knowledge any element essential to the very formation of cognition. • The one restriction may be termed, shortly, restric¬ tion by the way of addition; and the other, restric¬ tion by the way of subtraction. By these two restrictions all thinking is incapacitated from carry¬ ing beyond certain limits its operations on the data of experience. 6. All philosophers have seen that thought could not transcend experience by the way of addition : xiie latter . restriction no philosopher (except Berkeley, who had a glimpse of the truth) has seen, or at least has stated, that Seventh thought is equally incompetent to transgress ex- proposition, perience by the way of subtraction. And the con¬ sequence of their oversight shows itself in the fol¬ lowing counter-proposition, which, although never literally propounded, may be accepted as a faithful expression of the common and psychological opinion on the subject of presentation and representation. Eleventh Counter-proposition : Less can be repre¬ sented in thought than can be presented in know- ■ ledge : it is possible to think of less than it is pos- 296 INSTITUTES OF METAPHYSIC. PROP. XI. Its invalidity shown. The mini¬ mum cogita- bile equates with the minimum icibile. sible to know ; in other words, in conception some element essential to cognition may be left out" 7. But what would happen if we could think or re¬ present less than we could know, or have presented to us ? This would happen, that we should be able to represent what could not be known or presented to us, because less than what can be known cannot possibly be known ; and, therefore, if less than what can be known could be thought of or represented, something could be thought of or represented which could not be known. But it has been proved by this proposition, and it is a necessary truth of reason, that neither we nor any intelligence can think or represent what we cannot know or have experience of ; and, consequently, we cannot think of less than we can know : in other words, this counter-proposition, the progeny of psychology and inadvertent thinking, is false and contradictory. We are indebted for it to the psychological doctrine of “abstraction"’ which has been already animadverted on (Prop. VI., Obs. 32.) 8. This '^proposition fixes the unit or minimum of thought as commensurate, in its essential consti¬ tuents, with the unit or minimum of cognition. It fixes object (some thing or thought) plus subject as the unit of subsequent cogitation, just as Propo¬ sitions II. and III. fixed this as the unit of ante¬ cedent or original cognition. It was necessary to THEORY OF KNOWING. 297 remove all dubiety upon this point, in order to prop. obviate any misunderstanding as to what this sys- - tern really accomplishes, as well as to correct one of the vaguest inadvertencies of ordinary opinion, and to strip away from psychology one of the last cover¬ ings with which she endeavours to conceal her weakness and deformity. The minimum cogitabile per se is neither more nor less essentially than the minimiim scihile per se ; but the two are of the same dimensions and composition. 9. These remarks might be followed up by some notices of the history of representationism, or, as Dr di- ReM’s Tj.j . p • mistake in Keid terms it, the ideal theory of perception, and F's assault on by some account of the controversy in regard to it in which our countryman is supposed to have parti¬ cularly distinguished himself. It is, however, un¬ necessary to say more than this, that the whole po¬ lemic had its origin in a blunder on the part of Dr Reid, who supposed that his adversaries understood by the term “ representative knowledge,” something different from what he understood by the term “ intuitive knowledge.” Both parties meant exactly the same thing, only they called it by a different ’ name. The representationists held that real ob¬ jects stand face to face with the mind quite as de¬ cidedly as Dr Reid did, or as any sane man could do — that is to say, they held that it was our percep¬ tions of these things which were immediately pre- ' 298 INSTITUTES OF METAPHYSIC. PKOP. sent to our minds. To these perceptions they gave - - the name indifferently of ideas, images, phantasms, or representations ; whereupon Dr Eeid, getting embarrassed by the ambiguity caused by a diversi¬ fied nomenclature, taxed them roundly with main¬ taining an hypothesis which was unsupported by facts, and had for its consequence the denial of all intuitive cognition — of all knowledge at first hand. There never was a more mistaken or unfounded charge, made though it was in perfect good faith by Dr Eeid. By ideal or representative knowledge they meant, as has been said, exactly what he and ' his school mean by intuitive or presentative know¬ ledge : by ideas, or images, thej^ meant what phi- ■ losophers now usually term intuitions, and what the world at large calls perceptions. And further, what Dr Eeid and his school mean by ideal or re¬ presentative knowledge, his opponents would have called re-representative knowledge, had they used such a term ; but, instead of employing it, they ex- • pressed their meaning quite as well by the common words memory or imagination. The history of phi¬ losophical controversy has no more memorable mis¬ take to record than this of Dr Eeid, in which he supposed that his adversaries understood by repre¬ sentation what he meant by that term : he meant imagination, and supposed that they did the same ; • they, however, meant intuition, which was precisely the point in defence of which Dr Eeid was contend- THEOEY OF KNOWING. 299 ing ; so that in reality there was no controversy at all between them, or at most a purely verbal one. Intuition may be a better word for its purpose than idea or image : presentation may be more suitable than representation to indicate what is meant. But that is all ; and this, therefore, ought now to be dis¬ tinctly understood, that Dr Beid and his followers, instead of scalping a doctrine, have merely toma¬ hawked a word. 10. The truth contained in the doctrine of repre¬ sentative perception is this, that it is an approximate, though imperfect, enunciation of the necessary law of all reason, which declares that nothing objective can be apprehended unless something subjective be apprehended as well. The errors of this system are traceable to its neglect or inability to eliminate from the subjective contribution in the total perceptive operation, all that is contingent, retaining only so much as is proved to be necessary, and unsuscep¬ tible of abstraction, by a reference to the law of con¬ tradiction. But the explication of this subject must be reserved for the last proposition of the epistemo¬ logy, in which the contingent are disengaged from the necessary laws of cognition. PROP. XI. The truth and the error of represen - tatioiiism. PEOPOSITION XIL MATTER PER SE AGAIN. The material universe per se, and all its qualities per se, are not only absolutely unknowable, they are also of necessity absolutely unthinkable. DEMONSTEATION. The material universe and its qualities per se cannot be known or presented to the mind — (Props. IV. and V.) But what cannot be known or presented to the mind, cannot be thought of, or represented by the mind — (Prop. XL) There¬ fore the material universe, and all its qualities per se, are absolutely unthinkable as well as absolutely unknowable. OBSERVATIONS AND EXPLANATIONS. 1. The introduction of this proposition, and the preceding one on which it rests, will not appear THEORY OF KNOWING. 301 superfluous to those who are at all acquainted with prop. ^ XII. the evasive procedure of psychology. This science - - fiequently admits that matter 'psv sq is not to be proposition 1 .. introduced. known, but still holds in reserve the opinion that it may, in some way or other, be thought or conceived. Thus Kant, who surrenders all knowledge of things in themselves, makes a reservation in favour of some kind of conception of them. Matter per se is called by him a noumenon (to voov/j-evop) • that is to say, it is an object of thought — of pure intellectual contem- • plation ; a position which, besides being erroneous and contradictory, is remarkable for the direct re-' versal of the Platonic doctrine which it involves. Matter per se (Kant’s “ ding an sich ”) is with Plato the absolutely unintelligible, the most alien from all conceivability : with Kant it is the object of an in¬ tellectual conception, and the approved nutriment of thought — ^so strange are the metamorphoses which philosophical opinions undergo in their transmission from ancient to modern thinkers. In Kant’s hands Plato’s transitory and phenomenal has been trans¬ lated into veritable substance — the yiyvofifvov trans¬ muted into the Svtcos op. The present and preceding propositions have been introduced for the purpose of correcting this abuse, by showing that matter per se can be just as little the object of thought as it can be the object of knowledge. Should the reader, however, be inclined to adopt the contrary opinion, he will find satisfaction in the eleventh and twelfth 302 INSTITUTES OP METAPHYSIC. PROP. XII. On what con¬ dition matter per se might be thought of. counter-propositions, which reduce to logical preci¬ sion the vague and uncertain utterances of psycho¬ logy on this subject, and which, if true^ will be suf¬ ficient to uphold matter per se as thinkable, not¬ withstanding the demonstration of Proposition IV., by which it was proved to be absolutely unknow¬ able. 2. In considering this proposition and its demon¬ stration, — the first circumstance to be attended to is this — that matter and its qualities per se may very well be thought of, if some additional element be not essential to their original cognition. Thought can subtract whatever is not absolutely necessary to constitute knowledge in the first instance ; but thought cannot do more than this. No power of abstraction can withdraw from representation any element indispensable to the composition of pre¬ sentation. Every other element may be with¬ drawn, but an indispensable element may not be withdrawn. This point was sufficiently explained in the preceding proposition (Obs. 5), where the limitation of thought now referred to was called restriction by the way of subtraction. 3. The question therefore is. In attempting to cogitate matter and its qualities per se, is thought leaving out, or endeavouring to leave out, any ele¬ ment essential to the original cognition of matter THEORY OF KNOWING. 303 and its qualities? And the answer is, that thought prop, is unquestionably attempting to do ‘this. It is at- ^ tempting to leave out all conception of the egOj.ing'to^think which was antecedently apprehended alonsf with out an ° element es- matter and its qualities, — and this it cannot do : for ^entiai tous the ego required to be apprehended as the very “cannoTbT® ground (Proposition I.) and essential element (Pro- position II.) of the original cognition. And there¬ fore the thought of the antecedent ego must form part of the secondary representation, just as much - as the knowledge of it formed part of the primary presentation. Consequently, all thought as well as all knowledge of matter per se is Impossible. 4 In the case of thought or representation, the imagination leads us into precisely the same inad- How the vertency which we are led into by perception in the leads us case of knowledge or presentation. When we per¬ ceive external objects, we usually pay so little atten¬ tion to self that we seem to overlook altogether this most essential element of cognition : so when we think of, or represent, external objects, we think so little of the antecedent ‘‘ me,” formerly apprehended along with them, that we seem to be thinking of these objects themselves, without taking any notice of this, the necessary constituent in our original knowledge of them, and which is now a necessary constituent in our representation of them. The one oversight is the inevitable consequence of the other. 304 INSTITUTES OF METAPHYSIC. PROP. We are, in the first instance (in presentation), so XII. - - much more forcibly impressed by the presence to - the mind of the things, than we are by the presence to the mind of itself, that, in the second instance (in representation), we are much more impressed by the presence to the mind of the images of the things than we are by the presence to the mind of the thought of the self, which was apprehended along wdth the things whose images we are now con¬ templating. 5. For example ; the man who may have made Illustration, a tour, during last summer, through the Highlands of Scotland, was much more forcibly impressed by the charms of the scenery through which he passed than he was by the presence of himself whom, how¬ ever, he apprehended (faintly it may be) at every turn, and in continual concomitance with all that he beheld : — so subsequently, when he recalls to mind his former tour, his imagination brings before him ideal pictures of these scenes without bringing before him, by any means, so forcibly — indeed, without appearing to bring before him at all, that former self, which was apprehended in constant and necessary association with every one of them. 6. There cannot be a doubt that this illustration expresses correctly the state of the fact ; but just as little can there be a doubt that, in thinking or THEORY OF KNOWING, 305 representing what we formerly beheld, we are as much compelled by the necessary laws of reason to cogi¬ tate or represent ourself in its antecedent connec¬ tion with these scenes, as we were in the first instance compelled by the necessary laws of reason to apprehend this self when the objects were actually before us. And we are thus compelled ; because this apprehension of self was in the first instance essential to the constitution of the cognition, and therefore the thought of this antecedent apprehen¬ sion of self is absolutely necessary to the constitution of the representation. If it were impossible to know one thing without knowing two things, it would be impossible to represent one thing without represent¬ ing two things ; because, unless this were so, less would be representable than could be known ; in other words, that would be representable which could not be known. But this contradicts Proposi¬ tion XI., and is therefore a false and contradictory supposition. And the conclusion is, that we cannot think or represent to the mind our antecedent know¬ ledge or experience of material things without think¬ ing or representing the “ me ” by which they were, in the first instance, apprehended, and which was itself necessarily apprehended along with them. PROP. XII. Self must be represented just as much as it must be presented. 7. Twelfth Counter-proposition. — “Matter and its qualities per se are not absolutely incogitable ; they Twelfth admit of being conceived or represented in thought, position?™’ 306 INSTITUTES OF METAPHYSIC. PROP, although it may be true that they cannot be pre- - sented in knowledge.” 8. This counter-proposition expresses the inad- its character verteiicy of natural thinking, and also of psycho- and downfall. _ _ i i i l C logical science which comes up m the place ot Counter-propositions IV. and V., when these are subverted by their corresponding propositions. This counter-proposition would rest upon an assured basis if Counter-proposition XI. were sound ; be¬ cause, if less could be thought of than was essential to constitute cognition, there would be nothing to prevent matter per se from being conceived. But Counter-proposition XI. is false, and therefore Counter-proposition XII., which is founded upon it, is false also. The one goes down before Propo¬ sition XL, and the other before Proposition XII., as contradicting the necessary truths of reason. Matter per se has no chance of being thought of. 9. The psychologist sometimes argues that, al¬ though matter and its qualities per se cannot be imagined, they may nevertheless be thought of in some loose and indeterminate kind of way. Imagi¬ nation, he may admit, cannot represent to us the material universe emancipated from all subjective or sensational admixture ; but he may contend that pure thinking is competent to perform what knowledge and imagination are unable to overtake. This proposition disposes of that inconsiderate and THEOEY OF KNOWING. 307 evasive mode of arguing. It deprives matter per prop. se of every chance of being conceived or repre- - - sented. 10. And let it not be supposed that matter jper se can be reached hy the way of inference. What- It cannot be ever can be conceived inferentially, must be con- fhe way of • inf6r6uc6« ceived as the object of possible, though not of actual - cognition. But there is no potential knowledge, in any quarter, of matter per se, as has been already sufficiently established. It can be conceived only as the object of no possible knowledge ; and there¬ fore it cannot be conceived as an inference, except on the understanding that this inference is a finding of the contradictory, or of that which cannot be conceived on any terms by any intelligence. 11. It may be proper at this place to remark, parenthetically, that the discussion respecting mat- wiiy the iex per se is interesting and important, not so much respecting , n , . . matter per se on account oi any conclusion as to the independent “ existence or non-existence of matter which the in¬ quiry may lead to, as on account of the truths in regard to knowing and thinking which the research brings to light. Philosophers have been too apt to overlook this consideration, and to suppose that the main object of the research was to prove something either pro or con respecting material existence. That, however, is a point of very secondary import- 308 INSTITUTES OF METAPHYSIC. PROP. XII. ance, and one which, at the outset, ought not to be attended to at all. The inquiry should be gone into as if it were merely the smelting process, by which the most secret and essential laws of cogni¬ tion and of thought are to be extricated from the dross of ordinary opinion, and submitted to the attention of mankind. Viewed in this light, the importance of the discussion cannot be too highly estimated. The agitation of no other question can make known to us the fundamental laws of all knowledge — the binding necessities of all reason. If any other topic will answer this purpose, let it be announced : philosophers will very readily proceed to its examination. Would people inquire directly into the laws of thought and of knowledge, by merely looking to knowledge or to thought itself, without attending to what is known, or to ivliat is thought of? Psychology usually goes to work in this abstract fashion ; but such a mode of proce¬ dure is hopeless, — as hopeless as the analogous in¬ stance by which the wits of old were wont to typify any particularly fruitless undertaking, namely, the operation of milking a he-goat into a sieve. No milk comes in the first instance, and even that the sieve will not retain ! There is a loss of nothing twice over. Like the man milking, the inquirer obtains no milk in the first place j and, in the second place, he loses it, like the man holding the sieve. Modern wit has not equalled that intoler¬ able jest, which describes exactly the predicament THEOKY OP KNOWING. 309 of our psychologists, in their attempts to ascertain the laws of thinking and knowing, by merely look¬ ing to these, considered as mental operations. Our Scottish philosophy, in particular, has presented a spectacle of this description. Reid obtained no result, owing to the abstract nature of his inquiry, and the nothingness of his system has escaped through the sieves of all his successors. They drag for abstractions in nets composed of abstractions | and, consequently, they catch very few fish. If we would avoid this termination to our toils ; if we would protect ourselves against the unpleasantness of losing no result twice over, we must go to work in a very different way. It is of no use inquiring into the laws of knowing and thinking, considered as abstract operations. We must study the con¬ tents, and not the mere form of knowledge ; for the form, without the contents, — the law without that which the law determines,— is elusory as the dream of a shadow. We must ask, and find out, what we know, and what we think ; — in other words, we must inquire whether matter per se be what we know or think, or whether we have not, all aloncr, been practising an imposition upon ourselves in ima¬ gining that this was what we knew, when, in truth, this was not what we knew. If any impor¬ tant conclusions are to be reached, the concrete, and not the abstract, must be the object of our investi¬ gation, and this is what these Institutes have endea¬ voured to keep constantly in view. PROP. XII. PROPOSITION XIII. THE INDEPENDENT UNIVERSE IN THOUGHT. The only independent universe which any mind or ego can think of is the universe in synthesis with some other mind or ego. DEMONSTRATION. Objects plus a subject, or self, is the only uni¬ verse which can he known (Props. I. and II.) The only universe which can be thought of is the uni¬ verse which can be known (Prop. XI.) Therefore, objects plus a subject, or self, is the only universe which can be thought of Consequently, whenever any mind or ego thinks of the universe as independ¬ ent of itself, it must still think of it as made up of objects plus a subject. Therefore, the only inde¬ pendent universe which any mind or ego can think of is the universe in synthesis with some other mind or ego. THEOEY OF KNOWING. 311 OBSEEVATIONS AND EXPLANATIONS. 1. This proposition, like all the others in this sec- prop. tion of the science, abstains from affirming anything - as to existence. It does not state what independent speaks only . , of what can universe can alone exist, but merely what in de- conceived, ' '' not of what pendent universe can alone be thought of. "What- ever controversies may still continue to prevail as to the kind of independent universe which may exist, it is submitted that this institute settles, once and for ever, and beyond the possibility of a dispute, what the only kind of independent universe is which can be conceived to exist. 2. It answers a question which the reader, who is interested in speculation, may perhaps by this time it answers the question be disposed to ask, after finding himself apparently —what inde- i I ./ pendent uni- debarred from the conception of any independent thougS'on universe : — What universe, then, do the laws of thought permit us to cogitate as absolutely inde¬ pendent of ourselves ? The answer is this proposi¬ tion, which declares that the only universe inde¬ pendent of each of us, which each of us can think of, is the universe in union with some other subject than himself. Each of us can unyoke the universe (so to speak) from himself ; but he can do this only by yoking it on, in thought, to some other self. The laws of all thought, and of all reason, prevent us most stringently from construing to our minds any other 312 INSTITUTES OP METAPHYSIC. PROP. XIII. Why we do not think of things as amorplious when tliey are absent from us. universe than this ; but this kind of independent universe they permit us to construe to our heart’s content. 3. Another point which this proposition clears up is this : The reader may ask, When I suppose my¬ self removed from this sublunary scene, why do I not think of it as relapsing into that amorphous and nonsensical state in which it is declared to be when dissociated altogether from me ? Why do I think of it as still orderly and subsistent ? Why does it not drop instantly into the gulf of the contradic¬ tory ? Simply because you do not think of it as dissociated from every me. You cannot perform the abstraction. Whenever you think of material things which are no longer before you, you will find that you are either thinking of them and yourself as these were formerly apprehended together, or that you are thinking of them in connection with some other self or subject. It is through the performance of the latter operation that each of us is enabled to think the universe as independent of himself. This is not a matter of choice, — a mode in which we choose to think : it is a matter of necessity, — a mode in which we cannot help thinking. It is an operation which is done for us, and in spite of us, and in obedience to our deeper genius, who laughs to see how, even while we are performing it, we imagine ourselves to be doing something very dif- THEORY OF KNOWING. 313 ferent — namely, to be thinking of the universe by prop. itself, or out of synthesis with every intelligent sub- ject. This latter operation cannot be performed. It is made impracticable by the law which declares that that alone can be thought of which can possibly be known. But although it cannot be performed, we can understand how its performance, if possible, would have the effect of reducing the universe to the predicament of a contradiction j because the abstraction of the “ me '' would empty it of the ele¬ ment which, by Proposition I., is essential to the constitution of all knowledge or presentation, and which, by Proposition XI., is essential to the consti¬ tution of all thought or representation. 4. An objection, which at first sight may look serious, seems to lie against this proposition. It An objection may be alleged that, in cogitating material things, each of us can cogitate merely his own individual self, which was originally apprehended in the cogni¬ tion of them. It may be supposed that, no other than each person’s individual self having been known or represented to him in the first instance, no other than this can be conceived or represented by him in the second instance, according to the terms of Proposition XI. 5. This objection is very easily removed. It pro¬ ceeds on a misapprehension, not unnatural, of Pro- 314 INSTITUTES OF METAPHYSIC. PROP. XIII. Objection obviated. We have a single type- can suppose it repeated. position XI. ; which misapprehension, however, will be completely obviated if the reader will attend to the two restrictions of thought laid down among the observations on that proposition. Representation can, first, do anything except add to the data of cognition, an element of which no type or instance has been given, or can be given, in experience ; and, secondly, it can do anything except leave out an element essential to the constitution of original cog¬ nition. But here thought is doing neither of these things. Having apprehended myself along with all that I apprehend, I am furnished with a pattern or instance, according to which I can cogitate another, or any number of other, selves doing the same ; and having supplied in thought, by the supposed pre¬ sence of another “ me ” to the universe, the element essential to its cognition, I am leaving out no ingre¬ dient essential to the formation of knowledge. And thus each individual ego, without running into a contradiction, obtains in thought a universe abso¬ lutely independent of its individual self. This kind of independent universe each of us can believe to subsist in his absence without harbouring a contra¬ diction ; but we cherish a contradiction the instant we attempt to believe in any other kind of inde¬ pendent universe as subsisting in our absence. 6. The reason why the universe jper se is abso¬ lutely unthinkable, is because neither we nor any THEOKY OF KNOWING. 315 intelligence has, or can have, any type or model whereby to construct it in thought. Had we been furnished with any single instance of such a type, we could multiply in thought that type as often as we pleased, and represent to ourselves a world, or a plurality of worlds, per se. There is no transgres¬ sion of the laws of thought involved in the supposi¬ tion that what has once been known may be re¬ peated — and repeated in a great variety of fashions. But we have not, and cannot have, a single type given us whereby to cogitate matter per se at all. We are not supplied even with an example of a grain of sand per se. Proposition I. settles that point. And, therefore, no model whatever of mat¬ ter per se being presentable to us in knowledge, the material universe per se must for ever remain ab¬ solutely irrepresentable by us in thought. 7. But the case is totally different in regard to the universe mecum. In thinking of objects plus another subject, we are restrained by no such in¬ capacity as that which paralyses us when we would cogitate the universe plus no subject at all. Each of us has had an instance of this synthesis given to him in his own knowledge or experience. Each man apprehends the universe (or parts of it) with the addition of himself ; and therefore there is nothing whatever to prevent him from conceiving the same process to take place in an unlimited PROP. XIII. Why we can¬ not cogitate matter per se — no single type. We have a single type of objects + sub¬ ject — can conceive other cases of this. 316 INSTITUTES OF METAPHYSIC. PROP, number of other instances. He can think of the ^111. - universe plus another self ad libitum ; because, so soon as the conception of any one case is obtained, the conception of a plurality of analogous cases is also compassed. The conception of one necessarily brings along with it the conception of many. 8. These Institutes will scarcely be charged with Further loose argumentation, or with a disposition to flinch explanation self 0^0°^- consequence to which their premises may cmve another ^gad. All that they are concerned about is, that their deductions should be correctly drawn — not that they should be approved of when drawn : that issue must be as fortune may determine. The plea, therefore, which would limit each individual to the cogitation of his own individual self is re¬ jected, not because it is unpalatable, but because it is illogical. We are as much inclined to deal strictly with this point as any of our readers can be. The system, then, admits that each man can be cognisant, or have experience, only of his own individual self, and only of the universe which is presented to that individual self. The question, therefore, may be asked. How can he conceive any other self than this individual, or any other universe than that which this individual is in con¬ tact with ? Here it is that the distinction between the simply inconceivable by us, and the absolutely inconceivable in itself, comes to our assistance. THEOEY OF KNOWING. 317 The simply inconceivable by us falls (see Introd. § 68) under the category of the conceivable. We can conceive it as that which is conceivable from involving no contradiction. Hence, although an¬ other self is not knowable by me (in the sense of being experienced), and is, moreover, not conceiv¬ able by me (in the sense of being conceived as that of which I have had experience), still I can conceive another self as conceivable — that is to say, as non-contradictory. I can do this, because I know and conceive my individual self, and the things by which I am surrounded. But what I can think of as taking place in one instance, I can think of as taking place in an infinitude of in¬ stances ; or, what is the same thing, I can think of that one case as not the only case of the kind which is possible — in other words, as not exhausting the capabilities of nature in that particular direction. What has happened once, may be conceived to happen again and again. What is i possible at all is possible to any extent. My consciousness is both possible and actual, and therefore other consciousnesses are possible ; and, by a very easy and reasonable determination of the mind, I can admit them to be actual. With their actual ex¬ istence, however, I have at present nothing to do. What I am undertaking to show is, not that other we’s besides me exist, but only that I can form a conception of other me''s besides me, and PROP. XIII. 318 INSTITUTES OF METAPHYSIC. PROP. XIII. A word on Belief. Another difficulty obviated. that this is what each] of us (supposing that there is more than one of us) can do. It is, moreover, to be borne particularly in mind, that the other egos or subjects which are conceived by us, are always con¬ ceived as the universal part of all their cognitions, just as one’s own me is always known and conceived as the universal part of one’s own cognitions. Each of us having the type or pattern, can construct the conception ad libitum. 9. One word on the subject of Belief. Belief is the determination of the mind to accept as actual fact, or as actual existence, on grounds of probable evidence, whatever the compulsory reason has de¬ clared to be possible — that is, has shown to be non¬ contradictory. But, according to psychology, and more especially according to our Scottish philosophy of common sense, belief is the determination of the mind to accept as actual fact, or as actual existence, on' the evidence of ordinary thinking, that which the compulsory reason has proved to be impossible and contradictory. 10. Another difficulty has been started. Propo¬ sition I. affirms that, along with whatever a man is cognisant of, he must be cognisant of himself. In thinking, therefore, of the independent universe as a synthesis of objects plus another subject, must he not take himself into account as well, and must not THEORY OF KNOWING. 319 the total synthesis of thought, in that case, be objects plus another me plus me ? It is true that the syn¬ thesis which each of us cogitates is of this character. But the explanation is this : Propositions I. and II. lay down the essential constituents of all cognition, and, consequently, of all conception. These ele¬ ments are not necessarily more than objects plus one self This is all that is necessary to constitute a case of knowledge or of thought. These propositions enunciate that universal truth. Therefore, although I cannot cogitate things plus another self without taking my own self into account as well, yet I can perfectly well understand how such a case (to wit, a case of objects plus another subject) should take place without my having anything to do with it. There is no necessity whatever for me to take into account any other self, when I am cognisant of things plus my individual me ; and, therefore, there is no necessity for another self to take me into account, when he is cognisant of himself and the things by which he is surrounded. All this I can understand perfectly well. And, therefore, although it is true that I must cogitate myself whenever I think of another self in union with things, still I can conceive that other self, and the things he is cognisant of, to subsist, although I were entirely ’ withdrawn, or had never been called into existence. But I cannot conceive things to subsist without any “me ^ in my supposed annihilation. For to con- PROP. XIII. 320 INSTITUTES OF METAPHYSIC. PROP. Xlll. Thirteenth counter-pro¬ position. ceive this would be to conceive a contradiction — something from which the grounds of all conceiv- ability had been removed. If the reader will con¬ sider that the general thesis laid down in Proposi¬ tions I. and II. is simply this, that things and some one self are necessary to constitute the unit or mini¬ mum of all possible knowledge, and, consequently, of all possible conception, he will very readily sur¬ mount the difficulty which is here noticed, and will perceive that there is nothing in the present propo¬ sition which is at all at variance with anything that has gone before. 11. The counter- proposition only remains to be appended. After what has been said, it will be un¬ necessary to offer any remarks in refutation of this contradictory product of ordinary thinking, which psychology has taken under her protection. Thir¬ teenth counter-proposition : The independent uni¬ verse which each of us thinks of is the universe, out of synthesis or connection with every mind, subject, or self.” PROPOSITION XIV. THE PHENOMENAL IN COGNITION. There is no mere phenomenal in cognition ; in other words, the phenomenal by itself is absolutely unknowable and inconceivable. DEMONSTEATION. The first premiss fixes the definition of 'pheno¬ menon, “ W^hatever can be known or conceived only when something else is known or conceived along ^with it, is a phenomenon, or the phenome¬ nal. But whatever can only be so known or con¬ ceived, cannot be known or conceived by itself. Therefore there is no mere phenomenal in cogni¬ tion ; in other words, the phenomenal by itself is absolutely unknowable and inconceivable. OBSEEVATIONS AND EXPLANATIONS. 1 . F ourteenth Counter-proposition. — “ There is nothing hut the phenomenal in cognition ; in other Fourteenth words, the phenomenal alone is knowable and con- position.*^ ceivable by us.” X 322 INSTITUTES OF METAPHYSIC. PROP. 2. It must have occurred to the reader before now, that the best way of attaining to correct opi- fo/readUng nions on most metaphysical subjects, is by finding meiaprysicai Qut wliat has been said on any given point by the psychologists, and then by saying the very opposite. In such cases we are sure to be right in at least ninety-nine instances out of a hundred. Indeed, no better recipe than this can he prescribed for those who are desirous of compassing the truth. The case before us is a striking exemplification of the infallibility of this rule, which is established by all the other positions laid down in these Institutes, although, in most instances, not quite so obtrusively. This counter-proposition gives expression to one of those hereditary commonplaces, which the science of the human mind has an especial pleasure in parading; the opinion, to wit, that our faculties • are competent to deal only with the phenomenal— that is, the unsubstantial and unreal. What cause this dogma may be due to — whether to a mock humility, or to an inexactitude of thinking, or to both— is not worth inquiring, for it is manifestly false and contradictory. 3. This merely may be said, that psychology has The psycho- been permitted to indulge in this solemn species of Sruih"" trifling a great deal too long, and that it is high pufastop to. time it should be put a stop to. Why suppose that the wrong side of things is turned invanably towards us; and that all that we can know is not THEORY OF KNOWING, 323 worth knowing, whilo all worth knowing is hidden , prop. * ^ ^CIV impenetrably from our comprehension ? This mor- - - bid supposition is not humility— it is either lazi¬ ness or stupidity trying to look respectable in the garb of a mock modesty ; or else it is scepticism assuming the airs of superior wisdom ; or else it is timidity pretending to be caution ; or else it is hypocrisy endeavouring to curry favour with the Governor of the universe, by disparaging the facul- ' ties which He has endowed us with. Whatever it is, it ought no longer to be endured. Our intellec¬ tual tether is sufficiently short without any mis¬ directed psychological curtailing. The agnoiology will show that we are quite weak and ignorant enough without affecting to be still more ignorant and weak. 4. The restoration of the important philosophical terms “phenomenon” and “substance” to their The main true and original significations, by supplyiner 7- s 1 j • , . Jri \ following alia) tne only definitions which afford any concep- propositions, tion of them, is the main object of this and the three following propositions. In connection with no metaphysical words, whether considered in them¬ selves or in their history, does greater confusion and incorrectness of thought prevail ; and therefore, if speculative science is ever to acquire solidity and exactitude, it is essential that this mistiness and error should be removed. PKOPOSITION XV. WHAT THE PHENOMENAL IN COGNITION IS. Objects, wliatever they may be, are the phe¬ nomenal in cognition ; matter in all its varieties is the phenomenal in cognition ; thoughts or mental states whatsoever are the phenomenal in cognition ; the universal is the phenomenal in cognition ; the parti¬ cular is the phenomenal in cognition ; the ego, or mind, or subject, is the phenomenal in cognition. DEMONSTRATION. Objects, whatever they may be, can be known only along with self or the subject (by Prop. 1.) ; matter in all its varieties can be known only along with self or the subject (by Prop. I.) ; thoughts or mental states whatsoever can be known only along with self or the subject (by Prop. I.) ; the universal can be known only along with the particular (by Prop. VI.) ; the particular can be known only along THEOEY OF KNOWING. 325 with the universal (by Prop. VI.) The egOj or PROP. mind, or subject, or oneself, can be known only — - along with some thing or thought or determinate condition of one kind or another (by Prop. IX.) Therefore all these, conformably to the definition of phenomenon, are the phenomenal in cognition. OBSERVATIONS AND EXPLANATIONS. 1. In this case the counter-proposition is some¬ what peculiar. In expression it is coincident with a peculiarity tLo 1 i • . .... .inthecoun- rne proposition, but in meaning it is diametrically ter-proposu opposed to it. Psychology holds that we are cog¬ nisant only of the phenomenal, because our facul- • ties are inadequate to reach the substantial. Hence it holds that we are cognisant of the things enu¬ merated in the proposition only as phenomena. . The proposition, on the other hand, holds that w’e are cognisant of these things as phenomena, not because we are incompetent to apprehend the sub¬ stantial (see Props. XVI., XVII.), but because we can be cognisant of each of them only along with something else — that is, can be cognisant of each part only along with its counterpart. So that the error of psychology does not lie in the affirmation that we are cognisant of material, or other, objects only as phenomena, or of ourselves only as a pheno¬ menon (the proposition affirms the same) ; but it lies in the attribution of this cognisance to a wrong 326 INSTITUTES OF METAPHYSIC. PROP, cause — namely, to the peculiar structure of our — - faculties, which is supposed to debar us from any better species of knowledge 5 whereas the truth is, that our incompetency to apprehend each of these things otherwise than as phenomenal, lies in the necessary and universal structure of reason, con¬ sidered simply as such ; for intelligence, of what¬ ever order it may be, must apprehend merely as phe¬ nomenal that which it can apprehend only in union with something else — this being the very definition of phenomenon, that it is that which can be known only along with something else. Therefore, to bring out fully the error involved in the counter¬ proposition, it must be expressed in the following terms, stated as briefly as possible : — 2. Fifteenth Counter -proposition. — “ Objects, Fifteenth material or otherwise — thoughts or mental states whatsoever — the ego, or mind — all these are the phenomenal in cognition, not because each of them can be known only as part of a completed synthesis, but because our faculties are limited to the compre¬ hension of mere phenomena, and can hold no con¬ verse with the substantial.'’ 3. This counter-proposition is not only erroneous ; The counter- it is contradictory. It contradicts the only concep- involves a tion of phenomenon which it is possible to form, contradic- , . • aI. J and to which expression has been given in tne den- THEOKY OF KNOWING. 327 nition. The counter-proposition declares that each and all of the things specified in the proposition are known only as phenomenal. But nothing can be known only as phenomenal ; because (by Definition) the phenomenal is that which can be known only along with something else ; and therefore to sup¬ pose a thing to be known only as phenomenal would be to suppose it known both with, and with¬ out, something else, being known along with it, which of course is contradictory. What the parts of cognition enumerated in the proposition are, when known in their synthetic totality, is declared in Proposition XVII. ; the intervening proposition (XVI.) being required to show that there is a sub¬ stantial in cognition. PROP. XV. PKOPOSITION XVI. THE SUBSTANTIAL IN COGNITION. There is a substantial in cognition ; in other words, substance, or the substantial, is know- able, and is known by us. DEMONSTRATION. The first premiss fixes the definition of known sub¬ stance : “ Whatever can be known without anything . else being, of necessity, known along with it, is a known substance.” But some such thing must be known, otherwise all knowledge would be impos¬ sible ; because it is obvious that no knowledge could ever take place, if, in order to know a thing, we always required to know something else, and if, in order to know the thing and the something else, we again required to know something else, and so on in infinitum. Under such an interminable process knowledge could never arise. But knowledge does arise. Therefore a point must be reached at which , something is known without anything else being, of THEOEY OF KNOWING. 329 necessity, known along with it. And this some- prop. . XVI. thing, whatever it may turn out to be, is known - substance, according to the definition. Therefore there is a substantial in cognition ; in other words, substance is knowable, and is known by us. OBSERVATIONS AND EXPLANATIONS. 1. The words “ known ” and “in cognition ” are o here inserted (as on other occasions) in order to This proposi- 1 • 1 .. 1 1.,^.. tion proves guard against tlie supposition that this definition nothing as ^ ^ to existing fixes anything, or that this proposition proves any- substance, thing, in regard to existing substance. Known sub¬ stance may subsequently turn out to be coincident with existing substance ; but this is not to be as¬ sumed, and it is not assumed at this place. All that is defined is known substance, and all that is proved is that there is a known substance, not that known substance is existing substance. 2. The reader is also requested to bear in mind that this proposition says nothing as to what known Neither does ... , , , it declare the substance is ; it merely states and proves that there nature of known sub- is such a thing. What the thing is — in other words, stance, what corresponds to the definition — is declared in the next proposition. This remark is made lest any perplexity or dissatisfaction should be occasioned by the vagueness which necessarily hangs over a state¬ ment which merely announces that a certain thing 330 INSTITUTES OF METAPHYSIC. PROP. XVI. Reasons for iatroducing this proposi¬ tion. is, without announcing what it is. This vagueness of statement must communicate a corresponding vagueness of thought to the reader s mind ; and he may be uncertain whether he has apprehended the whole meaning of the proposition. He has appre¬ hended its full meaning if he will take it literally as it stands, and be pleased to wait for further light as to what the substantial in cognition is until he comes to Proposition XVII. 3. The theory of knowing would be very incom¬ plete unless it embraced an explanation of certain words in connection with which the utmost laxity of thought has at all times prevailed, and around which the most confused and fruitless controversies have perpetually revolved. Such words are “ sub¬ stance,” “phenomenon,” “the absolute,” “the rela¬ tive.” The loose and erroneous thinking which is attached to these terms, both in the popular mind and in psychological science, is what lies beyond all the powers of description to exaggerate. Definite articles, therefore, settling their meaning exactly, are quite indispensable in a work which professes to lay down the institutes of all metaphysical thinking, and to supply the standards by a reference to which all vagrant cogitation may be at once pulled up, and all controversies cut short. These articles, more¬ over, are necessary steps in the inquiry, because its ultimate aim is to ascertain whether, and how far, THEOEY OP KNOWING. 331 the substantial and the phenomenal, the absolute and the relative, in cognition, equate with the sub¬ stantial and the phenomenal, the absolute and the relative, in existence. 4 From what has been said, it will be obvious that the question which this proposition answers is simply this ; Is there any such thing as known sub¬ stance ? — a point which it is of the utmost import¬ ance to determine, the definition of known sub¬ stance being at the same time given. And the answer which the proposition returns to this ques¬ tion is the affirmative — yes. Now it is remarkable that ordinary thinking also answers this question in the affirmative ; and therefore, in so far as ordinary thinking is concerned, there is no counter-proposi¬ tion, and, consequently, the natural opinion on this point stands in no need of correction. The contra¬ dictory inadvertency of natural thinking only comes to light when it condescends upon what known sub¬ stance is. Vulgar opinion concedes that there are known substances ; and so far vulgar opinion is exempt from error. But ask vulgar opinion what known substance is, and vulgar opinion is instantly at fault. It declares that logs of wood and brickbats, and articles of that description, are known substancea Such a statement is contradictory ; because known substance, according to the definition, is that, and only that, which can be known or thought of with- PROP. XVI. The position of natural thinking in regard to this proposition. 332 INSTITUTES OF METAPHYSIC. PROP. XVI. Sixteenth counter-pro position. out anything else being known or thought of along with it. But logs of wood or brickbats cannot be thus known or thought of (as will appear from Prop. XVII., if it is not already evident to the reader) ; and therefore the assertion which declares that these, and such things, are known substance, is false and contradictory. But still, in so far as the present proposition is concerned, it encounters no opposition from popular opinion ; and therefore to this extent our natural modes of thought are neither inadvertent nor erroneous. To find the exact counter-proposition which Proposition XVI. subverts, we must look to the deliverances of psychology. 5. Sixteenth Counter -‘proposition. — ‘‘ There is,'’ says psychology, “ no substantial in cognition ; we are not competent to know or to form any con¬ ception of substance." Psychology then adds, some¬ what inconsistently, that substance is to be con¬ ceived as the occult substratum of manifest quali¬ ties, the unknown support of known accidents. But inasmuch as we are not considering at present what the nature of substance is, but only the state of the fact as to our knowledge of it, all remarks on this latter part of the psychological doctrine must be reserved fora subsequent occasion (see Prop. XVII., Obs. 8, 9, 10.) 6. This counter -proposition contradicts reason, because it advances a doctrine which, if true, would THEORY OF KNOWING. 333 render all cognition impossible. Unless the mind prop. could know something without knowing anything • more in other words, unless it could know sub- stance (for known substance, according to the de¬ finition, is whatever can be known without any¬ thing more being known), no knowledge, as has been stated in the demonstration, could arise ; be¬ cause, in that case, the mind, before it could know anything, would be eternally under the necessity of knowing something more ; and this process never coming to an end, knowledge could never come to a beginning. But knowledge does come to a beginning; it takes place. Therefore the mind can know something without knowing anything • besides; or, more shortly, it is cognisant of sub¬ stance; and the counter-proposition which denies this truth can no more keep its ground against these considerations, than a soap-bubble can with¬ stand a thunderbolt. 7. A moderate degree of reflection may convince any one that the definition of known substance Defence of here presented, is the only true and tenable and known sub- intelligible definition of it which can be formed. No other conception of known or knowable sub¬ stance can be formed than that it is that which can subsist in thought without anything else subsisting in thought along with it. Whatever can thus stand or subsist is certainly a known substance — a con¬ ceived subsistence ; whether it be an existing sub- 334 INSTITUTES OF METAPHYSIC. PROP, stance is a totally different question, and one with, — — which, as has been said again and again, we have at present no concern. A very distinct meaning can be attached to the word substance when thus understood 5 but every attempt to understand it in any other sense, is sure to result in understanding it in no sense at all. 8. Any further notices, critical or historical, re- Thisdefini- spccting substanco, will come in more appropriately Spinoza. *** under the next proposition. Meanwhile, this may be remarked, that the definition of it here laid ' down is due to Spinoza, who thus defines substance : “ Per substantiam intelligo id, quod in se est, et per se concipitur ; hoc est, id cujus conceptus non indiget conceptu alterius rei, a quo formari de- j^eat”*— that is, “By substance I understand that which is conceived as standing alone and unat¬ tached ; in other words, substance is that whose conception does not require to be assisted or sup¬ plemented by the conception of anything else. This translation is not strictly literal, but it gives Spinoza’s meaning with the utmost exactitude, and more intelligibly than any closer verbal rendering could do. Spinoza’s mistake lay in his premature¬ ly out this proposition as the definition of existing, and not simply as the definition of known, substance. * Ethics, parsprima, Definit. III. PROPOSITION XVIL WHAT THE SUBSTANTIAL IN COGNITION IS. Object plus subject is the substantial in cog¬ nition ; matter mecum is the substantial in cognition ; thoughts or mental states whatsoever, together with the self or sub¬ ject, are the substantial in cognition ; the universal, in union with the particular, is the substantial in cognition ; the ego or mind in any determinate condition, or with any thing or thought present to it, is the substantial in cognition. This synthesis, thus variously expressed, is the substan¬ tial, and the only substantial, in cognition. DEMONSTRATION. Object plus subject — matter mecum — thoughts or mental states whatsoever, together with the self or subject — the ego or mind in any determinate con- 336 INSTITUTES OF METAPHYSIC. PROP. XVII. Seventeenth countei'-pro- position. dition, or with any thing or thought present to it— the universal in union with the particular these varieties of expression declare what constitutes the only synthesis which can be known or conceived without anything else being known or conceived along with it (see in particular Props. II. IH- VI. IX. XIII.) Therefore this synthesis (thus various¬ ly expressed) is the substantial, and the only sub¬ stantial, in cognition, conformably to the defini¬ tion of substance given in Prop. XVI. OBSEEVATIONS AND EXPLANATIONS. 1. Seventeenth Counter-pTOjposition.—^^ Object plus subject-matter mecum— thoughts or mental states whatsoever, together with the self or subject _ universal in union with the particular this synthesis, thus variously expressed, is merely the phenomenal in cognition. The substantial is rather the separate members of the synthesis, than the total synthesis itself. Thus object apart from sub¬ ject-matter apart from mind— the ego apart from the non-ego, and separated from all thoughts and determinations— the non-ego divorced from the ego, and existing as it best can, — these are the substan¬ tial, not indeed in human knowledge, for human knowledge cannot lay hold of the substantial, but in reality, in rerum natura. They are the occult bases of all the phenomena, intellectual and mate- THEOEY OF KNOWING. 337 rial, which alone come before us ; and amongr these, prop. ° ’ XVII and equally phenomenal in its character, falls to be - ^ ranked what is called the synthesis in cognition of objects and subject — matter and me — mind with thoughts or things present to it — the universal and the particular — the ego and the non-ego.'’ 2. This counter-proposition is a conglomeration of epistemology and ontology, with a slight tincture Conglome- of common opinion, and a large menstruum of psy- ter of tlie ° i counter-pro- chological doctrine. To disentangle its contents, position, therefore, it must be put through a refining process — first, in order to clear it from all ontological ad¬ mixture, and to disengage and exhibit that part of it which psychology opposes to the proposition ; and, secondly, in order to disengage and exhibit that part of it which ordinary thinking opposes to the proposition. 3. First, Part of this counter-proposition is ob¬ viously ontological. Although psychology professes Elimination . . , of its onto- to have no faith in ontology, and disclaims all con- 'osicai sur- plusage. nection with so unapproachable a department of metaphysics, she nevertheless retains such a hold over this unreclaimed province as enables her, un¬ less vigorously withstood, to disconcert the opera¬ tions of the exact reason, and to impede the progress of genuine speculation. Thus, when the question is put, What is the substantial in cogni- Y 338 INSTITUTES OF METAPHYSIC. PROP. XVII. tion ? psychology is not content with answering that there is no substantial in cognition, and that what is supposed to he such is merely the phenomenal : she goes on to declare what the substantial in existence is ; aud thus people’s attention is called off from the proper and only point under consideration, while the truth, which is not over-willing to be caught at any time, slips quietly away during the confusion. “ We first raise a dust,” says Berkeley, “ and then complain that we cannot see ’ • — a very true remark. The speculative thinker asks a question about know¬ ledge, whereupon the psychologist instantly kicks up a turmoil about existence, so that neither of them can see what they are looking for. The ques¬ tion, What is the substantial in cognition ? is no more answered by saying that some occult sub¬ stratum of qualities is the substantial in existence’^ than the question. Who is the Great Mogul ? is answered by the reply that her Majesty Queen Victoria is the Sovereign of England. We there¬ fore throw overboard, in the mean time, the ontolo¬ gical surplusage contained in the counter-proposi¬ tion, and limit it to the relevant averment “ that objects fins a subject is not the substantial, but is the mere phenomenal, in cognition.” 4. The contradiction involved in the counter-pro¬ position thus restricted is instantly brought to light by an appeal to the definitions of substance and THEOEY OF KNOWING. 339 phenomenon (Prop. XVI. Dem., Prop. XIV. Dem.) Phe known substantial is whatever, and only what¬ ever, can be known or thought of without anything else being known or thought of along with it. Does anything else require to be known or thought of along with objects plus a subject, or along with matter uiecuTYi, or along with the universal + the particular? It is obvious that nothing else does (see Props. II. III. VI.) Does anything more require to be apprehended than the ego or oneself in some determinate condition? Nothing more requires to be apprehended (Prop. IX.) Therefore this synthesis, however it may be expressed, is the substantial in cognition, and is established as such on necessary grounds of reason ; and consequently the counter-proposition is the denial of a necessary truth of reason. Again : The phenomenal is whatever, and only whatever, can be known or thought of only when something else is known or thought of along with it. Can objects plus a subject — or can matter TYiscuTTb or can the universal + the particular _ or can the ego or oneself in some determinate con¬ dition can the synthesis of these be known only when something else is known along with it ? No indeed. The synthesis can be known by itself, and unsupplemented by anything further. PTerefore this synthesis is not the phenomenal in cognition, and is proved not to be this on necessary principles PROP. XVlI. Its contra¬ dictory cha¬ racter ex¬ posed in so far as it is psycholo¬ gical. 340 INSTITUTES OF METAPHYSIC. PROP. XVII. The counter¬ proposition considered in so far as it is the product of natural thinking. of reason ; and consequently the counter-proposi¬ tion is an affirmation which contradicts a necessary truth of reason. Thus it involves a mental contra¬ diction, whether looked at in its negative or in its affirmative aspect. 5. Secondly, We have now to consider what part of the counter-proposition stands opposed to the proposition as the product of natural, and not of psychological, thinkiug. It is sometimes diffi¬ cult to determine what is a spontaneous mode, and what is an acquired habit, of thought, because psy¬ chological doctrine frequently mingles its contami¬ nating waters with the not over-clear currrent of popular thinking, until men imagine that they are entertaining naturally, and of their own accord, some dogma for which they were indebted to a perverse training in what is called “ mental philo¬ sophy.” In the present instance, however, it is not difficult to distinguish the natural from the psychological judgment. Psychology tries to per¬ suade people that in all their dealings with them¬ selves and the universe, they never come across anything substantial — that mere qualities or phe¬ nomena are the objects of their contemplation. But the world has not been imposed upon by this consecrated nonsense, against which it is unneces¬ sary to argue ; for, let psychologists preach, and let their followers believe as they will, it is certain THEOEY or KNOWING. 341 that no man, in sober earnest, and if put upon prop. oath, would ever say that he had got down, and fairly digested, that stone. 6. In the counter-proposition it was stated that ‘ the substantial is rather the separate members xhe exact of the synthesis of objects plus a subject (matter coin*ter.pro- mecum) than the total synthesis itself ; but that , ’ tural tliink- these were not the substantial in cognition, but loathe •'“r only in existence.'’ To find the exact part of the counter-proposition which natural thinking adopts and sets up in antagonism to the proposition, we have merely to leave out the word “rather,” and to affirm that “ the substantial is the separate mem¬ bers of the synthesis, or, at any rate, is one of the factors of the synthesis — that, namely, which we call objects or matter— this is the substantial both in cognition and in existence.” Or, stated more shortly, the exact point of the counter-propo¬ sition, which is conformable to ordinary opinion, is this: “mere material objects are known sub¬ stances.” 7. The test of the truth of this statement is, as before, the definition of known substance. Can Contradic- material things be known without anything else counter-pro- , . , , JO position, in so being known along with them ? No, they cannot ; proUct because the “ me ” must always be known along thinkhlg!^ with them (by Prop. I.) Therefore material things 342 INSTITUTES OF METAPHYSIC. PROP, are not known substances — they are not the sub- ^ - stantial in cognition, whatever they may be in ex¬ istence ; and consequently natural thinking, which declares that they are this, is convicted of enter¬ taining a contradictory inadvertency. Thus the question, as to what is and what is not the sub¬ stantial in thought, is brought to a short but very decisive issue. The synthesis so often referred to, and which henceforward, for the sake of brevity, shall be generally denominated ohject-plus- subject, is the substantial, and the only substantial, in know¬ ledge and in thought. 8. The psychological opinion as to existing sub- Psyciioiogicai stance is, that this is the occult substratum of existing sub- qualities. Such an opinion is quite harmless, if stdaiv6^e- vov) was a synonym for the sensible {aiudr^Tov), and both of these were exactly equivalent to inchoate — that is, begun, but not completed cognition ; in other words, to cognition, which was not cognition, until supplemented by the element (eiSos) or (tSea) required to complete it. Thus the phenomenal was laid down as that which could be known or conceived only when something else was known or conceived along with it. But this is precisely the definition of phenomenon given in these Institutes. And thus there is an exact coincidence of opinion between the older systems and the present work, in so far as the conception of the phenomenal is con¬ cerned. 16. The same coincidence may be easily shown in regard to the conception of known substance. In the older systems, the substantial in cognition (to 6V) was a synonym for the intelligible (mrjrov), and both terms were equivalent to completed cognition ; that is, to whatever could be known or thought of with¬ out anything else being known or thought of along with it. But this is precisely the definition of known substance given in these Institutes. THEOEY OF KNOWING. 349 17. So in rGgard to tho phGnomenal, not simply in cognition, but in existence. In the older sys¬ tems, the usual synonym for this was the Becomino- (t-o ylyv6^levov) ; that is, inchoate existence (just as the sensible, diddrjTov, stood for inchoate cognition) : in other words, existence which is not existence until supplemented by something else. And thus, in the intention, at least, of the older systems, the defini¬ tion of the existing phenomenal was this: The existing phenomenal, or phenomenal existence, is whatever can exist only along with something else. In like manner, the substantial, considered not simply in cognition, but in existence, had for its synonym true Being (r6 opt^s dp), and was held to be equivalent to completed existence (just as the in¬ telligible, poTfTop, eiSo?, or Idea, stood for Completed cognition) ; so that the definition of the existino' substantial would be this : The existing substantial, or substantial existence, is whatever can exist with¬ out anything else existing along with it. There was thus an exact harmony or parallelism between the old conceptions of known substance and exist¬ ing substance, and between the old conceptions of known phenomenon and existing phenomenon. With these conceptions or definitions, in so far as they refer to existence, we have, at present, no concern. That point has been touched upon, be¬ cause even this incidental mention of it may help PROP. XVII. A word upon 'existing sub¬ stance and phenomenon. 350 INSTITUTES OF METAPHYSIC. PROP. XVII. Two main ambiguities in the old systems. to clear up a very obscure topic in ancient philoso¬ phy, and one on which no light is thrown in any history of speculation — the question, namely, Wlidt did Plato and his predecessors understand by the substantial in existence ? They understood by this expression whatever could exist without anything else necessarily existing along with it. What can only so exist is a point which can be properly enucleated only in the ontology. 18. The ambiguities of language which pervade the old philosophies, and have thus prevented their truth from being appreciated or understood, are mainly these two : First, The term t6 6V (true Being) is used both in an epistemological and in an ontological acceptation ; this is to say, it is em¬ ployed to designate both the substantial in cogni¬ tion and the substantial in existence. This twofold use of the term would have been quite legitimate, had any critical argumentation been employed to prove the coincidence of the known substantial and the existing substantial ; but no such reasoning having been resorted to, this double signification could not but be perplexing. In the same way, the term yiyvoy^tvov IS also used indiscriminately to signify both the phenomenal in existence and the phenomenal in cognition, the proper term for the • latter being the sensible (t6 aio-^ijroV). Secondly, A still more serious ambiguity was this: The term THEORY OP KNOWING. 351 TO ov, whether applied to cognition or to existence, prop. was used indiscriminately to signify on6 member - - only (that is, the universal part) of the total syn¬ thesis, whether of kno\^dge or of existence, and also to signify the total synthesis, consisting of the two members, universal and particular. And in like manner, the words hBos, Idea, votjtov, seem some¬ times to have stood for the one member only in the total synthesis of cognition (that is, for the universal part), and sometimes for the total synthesis, embrac¬ ing the two factors, universal and particular. And thus the same terms came to be somewhat abusively employed to signify both the substantial (that is, the completed synthesis, consisting of the universal and the particular, — our “ subject-p^^RS-object ”) and the phenomenal (that is, a mere part of the syn¬ thesis — to wit, the universal part, or our “subject"'). This ambiguity has undoubtedly been the occasion of much of the perplexity of thought and confusion of exposition which abound in the histories of philo¬ sophy. 19. It is not difficult to point out the origin of these ambiguities. The first is to be attributed to These ambi- the want of a clear line of demarcation between counted for. ontology and epistemology. The second is ex¬ plained by this consideration, that the universal element is so much the more important member of the two in the total synthesis (whether of cog- 352 INSTITUTES OF METAPHYSIC. PROP. nitioD or of existoncG), inasnuich. as tliero can b© — - no synthesis at all without this definable and de¬ finite factor, that it was regarded as almost equiva¬ lent, singly or by itself, to the whole synthesis. It swallowed up, as it were, the other or par¬ ticular factor, the varieties of which, being con- . tingent, were incessantly changing, and being in¬ exhaustible, were, of course, not to be defined. And hence the terms referred to (ItSof, I8ea, vnrjTov), which properly represented only a pr.rt of the * synthesis of cognition (or the phenomenal), came also to represent the whole synthesis (or the sub¬ stantial). 20. If this somewhat abstruse exposition be con- And cleared strued into the terms which the Institutes employ ferenceto to designate the substantial in cognition, the cause tionaidoc- -whicli has giveu rise to the ambiguity in question will be understood exactly. I-myself (“ the uni- versar’ of the older systems) — I-myself-with-the- addition-of-some-thing-or-thought — this synthesis, and nothing less, is the substantial in cognition, be¬ cause it alone can be known without anything else being known. But the part called “ I-myself ” is so much the more important and essential factor of the two, that it is very apt to be regarded as constitut¬ ing, hy itself, the substantial in cognition, while the particular element, the thing or thought, is very apt to be regarded as alone constituting the phenomenal THEOEY OF KNOWING. 353 in cognition, by reason of its contingent and variable prop. character. This, however, is obviously a mistake ; because “I-myself” cannot be known unless along with some particular thing or thought, or determi¬ nation of one kind or other, any more than the thing or thought can be known unless along with 'me. So that the term “I-myself ” is an expression of the phenomenal, just as much as the term “tree"’ or “anger” is an expression of the phenomenal. Neither of the factors can be known without the other, consequently each of them is the phenomenal, conformably to the definition of phenomenon \ but both of them can be known together without any¬ thing else being known; consequently, their syn¬ thesis is the substantial in cognition, conformably to the definition of known substance. 21. Notwithstanding these ambiguities, there can¬ not be a doubt that the doctrine of known substance Coincidence propounded by the older systems has much in com- speculations indeed, in its spirit, identical — with the doctrine set forth in these Institutes. According to the Platonic and pre-Platonic speculations, substance is not that which is apprehended solely by means of the senses ; nor is it that which is apprehended solely by means of the intellect. It is apprehended partly by sense and partly by intellect. The sensible, particular, or material element comes through the • senses, the intelligible, ideal, or universal element (the z 354 INSTITUTES OF METAPHYSIC. PROP. xvir. “ me ’’ of the Institutes) comes through the intellect, and their synthesis is the presentation of the sub¬ stantial, or real, or concrete. This doctrine need not puzzle any one who chooses to throw his eyes on the things around him, and then to consider that he is not apprehending them to the exclusion of himself, nor himself to the exclusion of them ; hut that he is apprehending them and himself in a synthesis which cannot be broken up in thought with¬ out breaking up and destroying the ground of all conceivahility. Each of the factors, when the at¬ tempt is made to conceive it by itself, is nonsensi¬ cal : the intelligible or universal element, by itself, is no less contradictory than the sensible or particu¬ lar element by itself. On this point the ancient speculations appear to differ from the doctrine of the Institutes : but this may proceed merely from their being less explicit — for it is obvious that the universal without the particular is just as inconceiv¬ able as the particular is without the universal (see Prop. VI.) Again, each of the elements is pheno¬ menal when considered as the counterpart of the other ; and, again, the two together are the known substantial, when considered per se, and without any¬ thing else being taken into account along with them. 22. In case it should be objected that this doc- An objection trine represents intellect equally with sense as a obviated. nonsense, inasmuch as it declares that the THEOEY OF KNOWING. 355 universal, or “ me,” which is the proper object of .prop. intellect, is absurd and incognisable by itself, the — following explanations must be given : Intellect is not, like sense, a faculty of nonsense, for this rea¬ son, that it is competent to take cognisance of the synthesis of oneself and things (or thoughts) : it apprehends both elements together, and this union IS manifestly comprehensible,— although either ele¬ ment, without the other, is just as manifestly in¬ comprehensible. In so far as its own mere element (the me dissociated from all thoughts and things) is concerned, intellect must be pronounced a faculty of the contradictory, just as the senses are of this • character. Nothing short of the completed syn¬ thesis is presentable, or comprehensible by the mind, and what more would people have ? 23. To return to the consideration of substance. What, according to the expositors of the ancient Mistakes of opinions, was the Platonic doctrine in regard to ofUnosopiIy substance ? Misled by the ambiguities which have ®‘ance. been noticed and cleared up, these commentators say or insinuate that, according to the ancient speculators, the substantial does not come to the mind through the senses at all — not even in part — but through some channel altogether independent . of sense. It is apprehended by pure intellect alone. The senses have no part to play in placing it before • the mind. They thus arrogate for their master and 356 INSTITUTES OF METAPHYSIC. PROP, for themselves the possession of some purely mtel- . lectual intuition by which pure substance is gazed upon. Professing in this way to reach the truth by relinquishing the employment of their senses, they have advanced a doctrine which is sufficient to drive the student of philosophy out of his. He finds himself referred away from his senses and the sensible world to grope for Platonic substance in regions emptier than an exhausted receiver, and murkier than the darkness of Erebus. He finds himself gazing at abstractions without any eyes, and grasping nonentities without any hands ; lilting up nothing upon the point of no fork ; and filling with vacuity a faculty which he does not possess. This is what the student finds himself doing who studies Plato in any, or in all, of his expositors; and for this occupation, which is by no means a pleasurable one, he is indebted to their having mistaken for • finished cognitions, data which were originally laid down as elements of cognition necessarily incog- nisable when considered apart from each other. 24. A hereditary dogma current in all the his- A traditional torics of philosophy is, that the ancient speculators dSSrng"‘ were in the habit of treating the senses with dis- dain, and of asserting that they were in no way instrumental in placing the truth before the mind. “ Magni est ingenii revocare mentem a sensibus, says Cicero, coolly platonising in the shade. Very THEOKY OF KNOWING. 357 easily said ; not so easily done. And supposing it prop. done ; suppose we have shown what great geniuses ■ we are by turning away the mind from the senses, — what then ? What is the next step ? Doubtless the insinuation is that we shall be rewarded by a glorious intuition of Platonic substance. But did any man, did Cicero himself, ever find it so? We may confidently answer — no. No man ever came to a good end in philosophy who tried to reach the truth by casting his senses behind him, or who strove to make his way by endeavouring to get on without them. This is one of those tradi¬ tional maxims which, originally a high-flavoured, although ambiguous truth, has been handed down through a long succession of philosophic vintners, not one of whom understood its spirit, until it has come to us with all its aroma evaporated — , the very refuse, or last deposit, of dregs which have been depositing dregs since ever philosophy had a name. 25. The true meaning of turning the mind away from the senses, is not that we should turn away The true r , 1 11- • / 1 meaning of irom tne senses and their presentations (the mate- turning tiie • rial world), and explore utter vacuity by means of a faculty wherewith we are not endowed ; but that, holding the data of sense steadily before us, we should bring ourselves to see that a non-sensible . element which we had overlooked, and which we 358 INSTITUTES OF ]METAPHYSIC. PBOP. XVII. always do overlook, or attend to very slightly in our ordinary moods, is and was, nevertheless, there all the while, essentially and necessarily there, and present to our mind, along with every sensible thing that comes before it — that, namely, which Plato calls an idea — that which this system calls, perhaps more intelligibly, ourselves. When this element is found out, the whole material universe still pre¬ sents to us precisely the same appearance as before ; because, of course, the mere finding out this ele¬ ment is by no means equivalent to putting it there. It was there all along, and it was apprehended as there all along. The only difference is, that we attended hitherto so slightly to its presence, as almost actually to think that it was not there. Hence our inadvertency in supposing that we ap¬ prehended things by and in themselves — that is, things with the element of their intelligibility, the ground of their apprehensibility taken away. This cardinal contradiction philosophy corrects. And surely common sense, when enlightened by philosophy, and not blinded, as she usually is, by psychology, will adopt this correction as one of her own most genuine and undoubted children, — and to this extent at least, will become perfectly recon¬ ciled with speculation, and a convert to her ways of thinking. The universe presents exactly the same appearance to speculation which it does to common sense ; only with this difference, that THEORY OF KNOWING. 359 speculation sees clearly, and traces through all its prop. consequences, the element essential to its cogni- - tion ; while common sense sees this element only confusedly, or almost entirely overlooks it ; and thus, unless instructed by philosophy, remains blind to all the Important results which an attention to this element brings to light. 26. Such, then, is the whole meaning of the ancient injunction about the necessity of turning wnat the the mind away from the senses, if we would reach the truth. Doubtless we must do this, to the ex- tent of perceiving that the truth does not come to us solely by the way of the senses, but that some- • thing else, which does not come to us through them, is necessary to make-up the truth which the • mind apprehends. Unless we turn away from the senses, and deny their sufficiency to this extent, they will inevitably mislead us — they will land us in a contradiction, as they always do in our ordinary moods ; for, at such times, they make us fancy that what we apprehend is placed before us solely by their instrumentality ; whereas the fact is, that they place before us only the inchoate or unintelligible part of the truth — only the contradictory element of known substance — the mind being the source which places before us the complemental part — the . part (to wit itself, or rather ourselves) by which the contradiction is supplemented, and thereby removed. 3G0 INSTITUTES OF METAPHYSIC. PROP. Further than this, to attempt to prosecute our re- - searches in metaphysics by turning away from the senses, or to expect to reach the truth by disdaining them and their intimations, would be to embark on a very hopeless enterprise ; and, moreover, to sup¬ pose that the ancient philosophers had any other meaning in view than that now stated, when they inculcated this precept, would be to treat them with very great injustice. 27. From these remarks, it must now be obvious Contrast be- to the reader (and this is the point which these iruon anT observations are chiefly designed to bring out) that psycliology in oftubltan^e ^ucient philosopliy and modern psychology stand menon^"° diametrically opposed to each other in their views as to substance and phenomenon. According to the old systems, the synthesis of subject-y?Zus-object (or, as they expressed it, the synthesis of the uni- . versal and the particular) is known substance, and this substance or synthesis is made up of two phe¬ nomena — two factors which are phenomenal, inas¬ much as neither can be known without the other, and which are nevertheless substantial, because the ' two together can be known without anything else. The known substantial is thus constituted by a syn¬ thesis of phenomena. Psychology, on the other hand, holds that the synthesis of subject-p^us-ob- . ject is purely phenomenal, and that its factors alone are substantial — object on the one hand apart from THEOEY OF KNOWING. 3G1 the subject, and the subject or mind, on the other prop. hand, apart from all objects. The substantial is - thus constituted by an analysis of phenomena. Shortly statedj the distinction is this : genuine speculation finds the known substantial in the syn¬ thesis of two phenomenals, which, in the opinion of psychology, are substantial— objects, namely, on the one hand, and subject on the other ; and it finds the phenomenal in the analysis of this sub¬ stantial. Psychology, on the contrary, finds the known phenomenal in the synthesis of two sub¬ stantial, which, in the estimation of speculation. are phenomenals — objects, namely, on the one hand, ^ and subject on the other ; and it finds the substan- tial in the analysis of this phenomenal. Thus specu- lation gives out as the substantial what nature her- self has fixed as such ; and, moreover, gives out as vv, attending carefully to this circumstance, and by working it out through all its consequences. This truth is the key to the whole philosophy of igno- . ranee. When we consider it well, we discover that 416 INSTITUTES OF METAPHYSIC. PROP. III. Third coun¬ ter-proposi¬ tion. the supposition that we can be ignorant of J^at which is absolutely and necessarily unknowable to all intelligence, is as extreme a violation of the law of contradiction as it is possible to conceive. We perceive that a nescience of the contradictory is not ignorance, but is the very essence of intelligence ; and that there can be an ignorance only of that which can be known, or, otherwise expressed, of that which is non-contradictory. With this dis¬ covery, light breaks into every cranny and recess of our science : the “ holy jungle ” of metaphysic is laid open to the searching day, arid now no obstacle can stop the onward course of speculation. 6. It may be doubtful whether, and how far, this proposition has ever been denied. But as it is not improbable that an obscure impression popularly prevails that we are most ignorant of that which cannot be known, the following counter-proposition is appended. Third Gounter-py'oposition : “We can be ignorant of what cannot possibly be known — in¬ deed, that of which there can be no knowledge, is precisely that of which there must be the profound- est ignorance.” If any such doctrine as this is, or ever was, entertained, it is conceived that it cannot hold its ground before the present proposition and its demonstration. PEOPOSITION IV. IGNOEANCE OF OBJECTS PEE SE. We cannot be ignorant of any kind of objects without a subject : in other words, there can be no ignorance of objects 'per se, or out of relation to a mind. demonsteation. We can be ignorant only of what can possibly be known (Prop. III. Agnoiology). But objects with¬ out a subject cannot possibly be known (Props. I. and II. Epistemology.) Therefore we cannot be ignorant of objects without a subject ; and thus there can be no ignorance of objects se. OBSEEVATIONS AND EXPLANATIONS. 1. The truths of the agnoiology now come down m a torrent. The epistemology has unlocked all The trmi,. the sluices. The opening propositions of the agnoi- TX! 2 D 418 INSTITUTES OF METAPHYSIC. PROP. IV. Fourth coun ter-proposi- tion — is swept away. ology have cleared away all obstructions which might remain ; and we have now little more to do than to look on while the waters take their own unimpeded course. The counter-propositions will he rapidly swept away before the irresistible flood. 2. Fourth Counter-proposition. — “We can be - ignorant of objects without a subject 5 in othei words, we can be, and we are, ignorant of objects 2')er se, or out of relation to a mind.” This counter¬ proposition goes down in an instant. There can be no ignorance, in any quarter, of an object without a subject or mind, simply because there can be no knowledge in any quarter, of an object without a subject or mind. PEOPOSITION V. IGNORANCE OF MATTER RER SE. We cannot be ignorant of material tilings out of all relation to a mind, subject, or self : in other words, there can be no ignorance O of matter per se. DEMONSTRATION. Material things out of all relation to a mind, subject, or self, cannot possibly be known (Prop. IV. Epistemology). But there can be no ignorance of what cannot possibly be known (Prop. III. Ag- noiology.) Therefore we cannot be ignorant of material things out of all relation to a mind, subject, or self; in other words, there can be no ignorance of matter per se. OBSERVATIONS AND EXPLANATIONS. 1. This proposition is merely a special application of the preceding more general theorem. But in 420 INSTITUTES OF METAPHYSIC. PROP, laying tlio foundations of a scionco, it is bottor to — — — over-do than to under-do the work. Part of the bus®n“sfof business of the epistemology was, by means of strict obgyf"°‘' demonstration, to run a number of things, which have hitherto been a source of much trouble to philosophv, into a position in which it is evident that there can be no knowledge of them : the main business of the agnoiology is to run these same things, also by means of strict demonstration, into a position in which it is evident that there can be no ignorance of them, and thus to disable them from operating any longer as impediments to the onward march of speculation. This tactic is now humbly submitted to the judgment of philosophers, as the only true dialectical art, and as the only method by which the highest problems of philo¬ sophy can be settled, without any further appeal being competent. 2. The execution of this achievement— which is Thedisad- no Optional or arbitrary stratagem devised by an TofstudyLg individual theorist, but an inevitable evolution of the catholic understanding, thinking, not as it wishes, but as it must,— bears evidence to the ad¬ vantage which accrues from a steadfast contem¬ plation of the necessary truths of reason, and to the loss and disadvantage which ensue from their neglect. Many philosophers had eliminated matter per se, things by and in themselves, from our know- THEOKY OF IGNOEANCE. 421 ledge ; but having done so, on the naistaken ground p;^p. of a special incompetency in the human faculties to - apprehend them in that condition, they were un¬ able to eliminate them from our ignorance. In point of fact, the very door which shut them out of our knowledge opened for them a refuge under the cover, or within the pale, of our ignorance. And there, accordingly, matter jper se has stuck until this time, — a dark and defiant inscrutability. 3. Hence the agnoiology hitherto propounded by philosophers, in so far as they have touched loosely The doctrine _ ^ _ _ _ of ignorance on this subiect, has been a tissue of contradictions, entertained ’ by psychology inasmuch as it represents us as ignorant of that opinio™'™'* which it is not possible for any intelligence to be ignorant of, and which we cannot suppose ourselves ignorant of without violating the first principle of reason. Here, no less than in their opinions as to knowledge, ordinary thinking and psychological science move in a series of contradictions, which have their origin in a neglect of the necessary truths of reason, and which, as in the epistemology, require to be corrected by the substitution of true ideas in the place of contradictory inadvertencies. 4. These contradictions are corrected in the theory of ignorance, which is now in the course of being The advan- ^ , • 1 • • of 8tud3’- constructed ; and, as has been said, it owes its ing necessary ’ ’ ’ ^ truth. whole strength to a sedulous contemplation of 422 INSTITUTES OF METAPHYSIC. PROP. V. The agnoi- ology carries out tlie worli of tlie epis¬ temology. the necessary truths of reason. Unlike the ordi¬ nary doctrine which discharges matter jper se from our knowledge, on the grounds of the limitation of our cognitive faculties, and thus consigns it to the province of our ignorance, this system eliminates it from our knowledge on the necessary principles of all reason, and thus eliminates it equally from our ignor¬ ance. It shows that matter 'per se is not a thing to be known on any terms by any intelligence, because oneself or the ego must always be known along with it ; — in short, it dissolves into a contradiction this hitherto obstinate insolubility, and thus expels it from our ignorance just as much as from our know- ledse, because it is obvious that there can be no ignorance of the contradictory, or of that of which there can be no knowledge. If any flaw can be detected in this reasoning, its author will be the first to admit that these Institutes are, from begin¬ ning to end, a mere rope of sand ; but if no flaw can be detected in it, he begs to crave for them the acknowledgment that they are a chain of adamant. 5. The agnoiology carries out and completes the work entered on in the epistemology. In the epis¬ temology we beheld only the backs — the dorsal fins, if we may so speak — of the necessary truths ; in the agnoiology we see under them, and all round them. We look upon them — like Horace's first mariner on the swimming sea-monsters — siccis oculis, as they THEOEY OF IGNOEANCE. 423 turn up their shadowy sides, and gleaming ahdo- mina. In the former section it was shown that there could be no knowledge of their opposites ; in the present section it is shown that there can be no ignorance of their opposites. Thus all those things which we are prevented from knowing by the neces¬ sary laws of all reason, are struck down right and left, and are exterminated in their ultimate citadel of refuge — the stronghold, namely, of our ignorance — to which they have always hitherto betaken them¬ selves when expelled from our cognition and con¬ ception, (see Prop. XI. Epistemology, Ohs. 1.) This operation effectually clears the ground, as will be seen in the sequel, for the establishment of a de¬ monstrated and impregnable ontology. 6. It may be proper to explicate this doctrine somewhat more fully, and to point out certain his¬ torical circumstances connected with it — the corre¬ sponding counter-proposition being first of all sub¬ joined. Fifth Counter-proposition : “We are alto¬ gether ignorant of material things out of all rela¬ tion to a mind, subject, or self; in other words, w'e are profoundly ignorant of matter seF 7. Many philosophers have seen that the human mind cannot know things hy and in themselves, because it can know them only as modified and supplemented by its own faculties of cognition ; PROP. v. Fifth coun¬ ter-proposi¬ tion. Psychological conclusion as to our ignorance of matter per se. 424 INSTITUTES OF METAPHYSIC. PROP. V. It rests on a contradictory assumption. in other words, that it can know them only as seen things, as touched things, and so forth — some subjective contribution being always added to the thing, and the total object apprehended being thus a composite product made up of a part which was objective, and a part which was subjective. Hence they concluded, very rashly and inconsiderately, that we were ignorant of the objective part per se, or separated from the subjective part. They adopt¬ ed this counter-proposition. They gave out that we were ignorant of matter per se, of things by and in themselves. This conclusion is more particularly embraced and insisted upon by Kant. 8. This conclusion, however, rests on an assump¬ tion which contradicts the mbst strongest and essential principles of reason. It is founded on the assumption that these things may possibly be known as they are, by and in themselves, and out of relation to all intelligence. This premiss must be postulated by those who maintain that we are ignorant of material things per se ; because it would be manifestly absurd to assert that we could be ignorant of what could not possibly be known. This, then, is their postulation ; and if it were true, or if it could be conceded, their conclusion would be perfectly legitimate. 9. But the whole tenor of this work has proved THEORY OF IGNORANCE. 425 that the postulation in question is contradictory, prop. It stands opposed to the primary law of all know- - - ledgOj as expressed in the first proposition of the logical con- epistemology, which declares that all cognition of iiierefore, is . _ ° contradic- material or other things per se is impossible, inas- much as every intelligence (actual or possible) which apprehends material things, must apprehend itself along with them ; in other words, must apprehend them, not per se, but cum alio. Hence the con¬ clusion now under discussion is contradictory, be¬ cause it is founded on an assumption which is con¬ tradictory : and thus the counter-proposition which contends for our ignorance of matter per se, or of the universe as it exists by and in itself, is anni¬ hilated by the artillery of necessary truth. 10. From these remarks it is obvious that Kant and other philosophers have fallen into the mis- The origin of take of supposing that we could be ignorant of mistake , ^ ° pointed out. material things per se through an Inattention to the causes which render them absolutely unknow¬ able. They supposed that they were simply un¬ knowable by us on account of the limitation or imperfection of our faculties of cognition, but that they were still possibly knowable by intelligences competent to know them. In the course of this work, however, it has been repeatedly shown that our incompetency to know matter per se is due to no such cause, but is attributable to the essential 426 INSTITUTES OF METAPHYSIC. PROP.. V. No ontology is possible, if we can be ignorant of matter per se. structure of all intelligence, and to the necessary laws of all cognition. Hence matter per se is not the simply unknowable and inconceivable to us it is the absolutely unknowable and inconceivable in itself ; in other words, it is the contradictory, — a consideration which dislodges it from our igno¬ rance just as effectually as it dislodges it from our knowledge, as must be apparent to all who have mastered the very simple argument by which this conclusion is established. 11. Unless this conclusion were established, no ontology would be possible, and to the failure to establish it is to be attributed the shipwreck which all previous attempts to consolidate this department of metaphysical science have suffered. Ontology, or the science of true Being, undertakes to demon¬ strate what true Being is, what alone absolutely exists. But our ignorance being, beyond all ques¬ tion, excessive, we must get the ontological demon¬ stration into such a shape that we shall be able to affix the same predicate to absolute existence — to declare with certainty what it is, whether we sup¬ pose ourselves to know it, or to be ignorant of it. By working the system into such a shape that the result is the same on either alternative, a valid on¬ tology may be constructed. But if it were true that we could be ignorant of matter per se, an obstacle would be interposed which would frustrate all our THEOEY OF IGNOEANCE. 427 endeavours. Because if we are ignorant of matter pel' se, and if we are also ignorant of absolute exist¬ ence (as may very well turn out to be the case), matter per se may, in these circumstances, be abso¬ lute existence, for anything that we can show to the contrary — or it may not be this. W^e are reduced to a condition of dubiety. We can neither affirm nor deny anything about “ Being in itself” with any assured certainty. Our lips are sealed — our advance is blockaded. The issues of the system are sceptical and unsatisfactory. Science is out of the question, — for there is no science in an alterna¬ tive conclusion ; and, finally, we are driven to have recourse to those arts of vague conjecture and loose declamation which genuine speculation disdains. But let it be once proclaimed and demonstrated, as it has now been, that we cannot (without run¬ ning into absurdity) suppose ourselves ignorant of moitev per se any more than we can suppose ourselves cognisant of it, — and at the blast of that trumpet down fall all the obstructions and defences which have fortified, from time immemorial, the enchanted castle of ontology. PROP. V. PROPOSITION VI. IGNOEANCE OF THE UNIVERSAL AND PARTICULAR. We cannot be ignorant either of the universal element of cognition per se, or of the parti¬ cular element of cognition per se. DEMONSTRATION. We cannot be ignorant of the universal element apart from the particular element, or of the parti¬ cular element apart from the universal element of cognition, because (by Prop. VI. Epistemology) there can be no knowledge of the universal apart from the particular, or of the particular apart from the universal. But what there can he no know¬ ledge of, there can be no ignorance of (Prop. III. Agnoiology). Therefore we cannot be ignorant of the universal element of cognition per se, or of the particular element of cognition per se. OBSERVATIONS AND EXPLANATIONS. 1. Just as the preceding propositions (IV. and V.) are the obverse of the second and fourth of the THEORY OF IGNORANCE. 429 epistemology ; so this proposition is the obverse of prop. ^ VI. the sixth of the epistemology. It excludes from - our ignorance the universal and the particular ele- proposition, ments of cognition, when unaccompanied by each other — just as Proposition VI. of the epistemology excluded them from our knowledge. 2. Sixth Counter-proposition. — “We can be igno- sixth conn- rant of the universal element of cognition se, and ^ also of the particular element per se.” 3. Like Counter-proposition VI. of the epistemo¬ logy, this counter-proposition makes no distinction The error between elements of cognition and kinds of cogni- involves, tion ; or rather it mistakes elements for kinds, and hence it falls into a contradiction. If the particu¬ lar and the universal were kinds of cognition, it would be quite possible for us to be ignorant of either without being ignorant of the other ; because, in that case, it would be possible for either to be known without the other being known. But, since the particular and the universal are not kinds, but are mere elements of cognition, it is not possible for us to be ignorant of either without being ignorant of the other, because it is not possible for either to be known without the other being known. PROPOSITION VIL Design and effect of this proposition. IGNORANCE OF THE EGO PER SE. We cannot be ignorant of the ego per se; in other words, there can be no ignorance of the mind in a state of pure indetermina¬ tion, or with no thing or thought present to it. DEMONSTEATION. There can be no ignorance of the ego or mind 'per se, because (by Prop. IX. Epistemology) there can be no knowledge of it ; and because (by Prop. III. Agnoiology) there can be no ignorance of that of which there can be no knowledge. OBSERVATIONS AND EXPLANATIONS. 1. This proposition, which is the obverse of the ninth of the epistemology, is designed to protect the reader, whom the latter proposition has saved THEOEY OP IGNOEANCE. 431 from the contradiction involved in the supposition that there can be any knowledge of the ego jper se, - from falling into the opposite contradiction of sup¬ posing that there can be any ignorance of it. 2. Seventh Counter-proposition. — We can be ignorant, and are ignorant, of the ego per se ; in seventh other words, there can be, and there is, an igno- proposition, ranee of the mind in a state of pure indetermination, or with no thing or thought present to it.” This counter-proposition is sufficiently demolished by the antagonist proposition, and may be left to expire without further comment. 3. The present and preceding propositions (IV. V. VI. VII.) have fixed what there CHiH Ifhoij b© 3jI1 Wbat the ignorance of : the next article settles what alone doernixl^ there can be an ignorance of PROPOSITION VIIL THE OBJECT OF ALL IGNOEANCE. The object of all ignorance, whatever it may be, is always something more than is usually regarded as the object. It always is, and must be, not any particular thing merely, but the synthesis of the particular and the universal : it must always consist of a sub¬ jective as well as of an objective element ; in other words, the object of all ignorance is, of necessity, some-object-pZ^s-some-sub- ject. DEMONSTRATION. There can be an ignorance only of the know- ahle (Prop. III. Agnoiology). But the only know- able is the union of the objective and subjective — the synthesis of the universal and particular — the concretion of the ego and the non-ego. (Props. I. II. III. VI. and IX. Epistemology). Therefore THEOEY OF IGNOEANCE. 433 there can be an ignorance only of the objective and prop. subjective in union, only of the synthesis of the - ^ universal and particular, only of the concretion of the ego and the non-ego ; in other words, the ob¬ ject of all ignorance is, of necessity, some-object- p?^ts-some-subj ect. OBSEEVATIONS AND EXPLANATIONS. 1. Just as Proposition II. of the epistemology fixes what the object of all possible knowledge is. Relation of so this proposition fixes what the obi ect of all nos- ’''O" to Prop. ..... , ^ II. of the sible Ignorance is ; and, moreover, just as the object epistemology, of all knowledge is determined by a reference to the law of all knowledge laid down in Proposition I. of the epistemology, so the object of all igno¬ rance is determined by a reference to the law of all ignorance given out in the third of the agnoiology. Once concede (and how can the concession be evaded?) that a self or subject must be known along with all that is known, and subject plus ob¬ ject becomes of necessity the only possible object of cognition — the only knowable : once concede (and how can the concession be evaded ?) that there can be an ignorance only of the knowable, and object subject becomes of necessity the only possible object of ignorance^ — the only ignorable — if so bar¬ barous a word be permissible. Thus the main pur¬ pose of this section of the science is attained, which 2 E 434 INSTITUTES OF METAPHYSIC. PROP. VIII. The object of ignorance is neither no¬ thing nor the contradic¬ tory. was to demonstrate the coincidence of the result of the agnoiology with the result of the epistemology, or to show that the only object of all knowledge is also the only object of all ignorance. (See Intro¬ duction, § 60.) 2. Novel, and somewhat startling, as this doc¬ trine may seem, it will be found, on reflection, to be the only one which is consistent with the dic¬ tates of an enlightened common sense ; and the more it is scrutinised, the truer and the more im¬ pregnable will it appear. If we are ignorant at all (and who will question our ignorance ?) we must be ignorant of something ; and this something is not nothing, nor is it the contradictory. That is ad¬ mitted on all hands. But every attempt to fix the object of our ignorance as anything but object + subject must have the effect of fixing it either as nothing, or as the contradictory. Let it be fixed as things i^er se, or as thoughts per se — that is, without any subject; but things or thoughts, with¬ out any subject, are the contradictory, inasmuch as they are the absolutely unknowable and inconceiv¬ able. Therefore, unless we can be ignorant of the contradictory (a supposition which is itself contra¬ dictory, and in the highest degree absurd), we can¬ not be ignorant of things per se, or of thoughts per se. Again, let it be fixed as subject per se, as the ego with no thing ‘or thought present to it. But THEOEY OF IGNOEANCE. 435 the subject per se is equally contradictory with oh- prop. ject per se. It cannot be known on any terms by any intelligence ; and, therefore, unless we enter¬ tain the absurd supposition that we can be ignorant of the contradictory, we cannot be ignorant of the subject, or ego, or mind, per se. Again, let the ob¬ ject of our ignorance be fixed as nothing. But who was ever so foolish as to maintain that we were Ignorant of nothing? By the very terms of the research, in which our ignorance is admitted, we confess ourselves to be ignorant of something. And therefore, since this something cannot be things by themselves, or the non-ego per se, and cannot be the mind by itself, or the ego per se, and moreover cannot be nothing, it must be the synthesis of things and some mind — the non-ego p>lus some ego —in short, some-object-plus-some-subject. If any other alternative is left which the object of our ignorance may be, this system will be glad to learn what that alternative is. * 3. It is scarcely credible that, at this time of day, any philosophical opinion should be absolutely ori- it is Sieved ginal, or that any philosophical truth, of which no doctrine is previous hint exists in any quarter, should now, for the first time, be brought to light. Nevertheless, the doctrine now under consideration is believed to be^ altogether new. If it is not so, the present writer will be ready to surrender it to any prior 43G INSTITUTES OF METAPHYSIC. PBOP. VIII. What has caused this doctrine to be missed. claimant wlio may be pointed out, and to give honour to whom honour is due. But meanwhile, this system may be permitted to hold possession of it as its own peculiar discovery — a circumstance which is mentioned, because those who may favour these Institutes with their attention, may perhaps have some inclination to know wherein, more par¬ ticularly, their originality is supposed to consist. They claim to have announced for the first time the true law of ignorance, and to have deduced from it its consequences. 4. If this doctrine of ignorance has been missed by previous inquirers, the cause of the oversight is to be found in the inaccuracy of their observations in regard to the object of all knowledge. Until this had been fixed as consisting necessarily of an objec¬ tive and a subjective element, no theory determin¬ ing demonstrably the object of all ignorance was possible. But we have seen throughout the episte¬ mology, how loose, wavering, inexact, erroneous, and indeed contradictory, the opinions of philosophers in general, and of psychologists in particular, have been in regard to the object of knowledge ; and hence it is not surprising that their opinions should have been equally confused, or rather more confused and unsettled, in regard to the object of ignorance. Many previous approximations, indeed, have been made to the true theory of knowledge. It has been THEORY OF IGNORANCE. 437 seen, more than once, that the unity of object and prop. subject is the only possible object of cognition. But — this doctrine, not having been worked through all its phases, or followed out into all its consequences, remained, as has been said, a mere approximation to the truth. It was left very far in arrear ; and hence the true doctrine of ignorance, which depends entirely on the perfecting of that antecedent specu¬ lation, has never shown itself until now. 5. Another cause of the omission is to be found in the circumstance that philosophers hitherto have Another cir- been satisfied with making our ignorance a theme '''Wch‘has r 1 1 1 . . caused it to lor moral declamation, instead of making it a sub- '"‘ssed. ject for metaphysical inquiry. Its quantity has distracted their attention from its quality. “ Heu, quantum est quod nescimus ! ” exclaim they pathe¬ tically. W hat an immensity of ignorance is ours! drue ; but these whinings will never teach us what ignorance is, what its law is, and . what its object is : and this alone is what we, as searchers after truth, are interested in finding out. To tell us how much a thing is, will never teach us what it is, as our psychologists, moralis¬ ing on the boundlessness of human ignorance, seem to suppose. “ What does this cheese con¬ sist of?" says a customer to his grocer. “Con¬ sist of ! ” answers the man — “ consist of ; why, it weighs twenty pounds to a hair, and that is what 438 INSTITUTES OF METAPHYSIC. PROP, it consists of.” Our psychologists are that grocer. - We ask them what ignorance is, and what we are ignorant of ? and they reply that, while our know¬ ledge is as mere dust in the balance, our ignorance is so great that it might ballast the whole British navy. This, as has been said, is to mistake a ques¬ tion as to quality, for a question as to quantity — rather a serious error for a philosopher to fall into. 6. It must not be supposed that this proposition In fixing the bv wliich the limits of our ignorance are marked object of ig- ° proposition" object defined and demonstrated, has ft^magnt®"^ any tendency to question the extent, or to deny the magnitude of our ignorance. It rather doubles it. This circumscription leaves to our ignorance ample room and verge enough ” — as will be apparent im¬ mediately. Its effect merely is to prevent us from thinking or talking absurdly about ignorance. In pointing out the object of all ignorance, it fixes merely the bounding extremes, the standard factors, the supporting uprights, as they may be termed, which limit ignorance, properly so called, to its own entire object, and prevent it both from slipping over upon nonsensical /ia^/-objects, and from being con¬ founded with that inevitable nescience of the con¬ tradictory which is the prime characteristic of reason, but which it is extremely apt to be mistaken for, unless due precaution be observed to guard against so portentous an inadvertency. THEORY OF IGNORANCE. 439 7. Further, it must be borne in mind that this prop. proposition does not profess to define the object of - ^ all ignorance in terms more definite than the gene- objec/ong-® ral statement that it must always be a thing or a definable, '' ® and how far thought of some kind or other in union with an intelligent mind. It must be this, because this syn¬ thesis alone can be known. The system, however, is very far from professing to declare what the un¬ known things or thoughts may be, or what the powers of the unknown subject may be, or what the special nature of the unknown synthesis may be which subsists between it and its objects. All these may be, and indeed are (except in our own individual cases), points of which we are profoundly ignorant, and about which we cannot speak with any degree of certainty. So that lying between the two extremes which bound the object of our ignorance — a subject on the one hand, and objects on the other — there is scope for an infinitude of unknown details. We are ignorant of the particu¬ lar element which is in synthesis with the universal subject, we are ignorant of the special capacities of the universal subject, we are ignorant of the nature of the synthesis. In a word, all that can be de¬ finitely and demonstrably fixed as the object of all ignorance is, as has been said, that it is some sub¬ ject, or ego, in union with some object, or non-ego. The particular element of cognition — the non-ego — is contingent, variable, indefinite, and inexhaust- 440 INSTITUTES OP METAPHYSIC. PROP, ible (see Prop. VI. Epistem., Obs. 2), a fortiori the VIII ' ^ • - ^ particular element of ignorance — the non-ego — is contingent, variable, Indefinite, and inexhaustible, and therefore not to be condescended upon. Tlie advan- tafje of dis¬ criminating the necessary from the contingent laws of know¬ ledge. 8. The advantage of discriminating the necessary from the contingent conditions of knowledge effect¬ ed in the twenty-second proposition of the Episte¬ mology now becomes apparent. The object of our ignorance must be a subject plus some object. But the subject comprised in this synthesis need not know things in the ways in which we know them, but may be cognisant of them in ways totally dif¬ ferent, and the objects comprised in this synthesis may be altogether different from the objects of which we are cognisant. All that is fixed by rea¬ son as necessary is, that the object of which we are ignorant should be objects yiZu/S a subject ; because any other object than this is contradictory, as has been shown, again and again, on necessary grounds of reason. But had this analysis not been effected, the important conclusion referred to could not have been reached. If the discrimination had not been made — in other words, if the necessary laws had been reduced to a level with the contingent laws — objects per se, or without any subject, would have been fixed as the object of our ignorance ; in which case materialism would have triumphed, and all the higher interests of man, in behalf of which specula- THEOEY OF IGNOEANCE. 441 tion so zealously contends, would have been placed in jeopardy : reasoning at least could have done nothing towards their extrication and security. Aerain, if the contingent laws had been elevated to a level with the necessary laws, the only possible object of our ignorance would have been a subject apprehending things exactly as we apprehend them. This would have been the only possible object of ignorance, because, in the circumstances supposed, it would have been the only possible object of knowledge ; in which case the sophism of Prota¬ goras would have been verified, that man is the measure of the universe. Our ontology would have been anthropomorphical and revolting. But the accomplishment of the analysis referred to, extri¬ cates the system from this dilemma. By distin¬ guishing the necessary from the contingent laws of cognition, we were able to obtain demonstrably in the epistemology a mind, or self, or subject plus some objects (though what objects it is impossible to say — this being the particular, variable, and in¬ exhaustible element of cognition) as the only pos¬ sible object of all knowledge ; and in like manner, this distinction enables us to obtain demonstrably in the agnoiology a mind, or self, or subject plus some objects (though what objects it is impossible to say — this being the particular, variable, aud in¬ exhaustible element of ignorance) as the only pos¬ sible object of all ignorance. The system is thus PROP, VIII. 442 INSTITUTES OF METAPHYSIC. PEOP. VIII. This system is more humble in it pretensions than other systems. advancing in strength towards the position where ontology lies intrenched ; it is drawing closer and closer its lines of circumvallation around the encamp¬ ment of Absolute Existence, and has already driven in its outposts. 9. From these remarks it will be seen, that this doctrine, so far from denying our ignorance, rather represents it as double. In fixing the object of ignorance as non-contradictory — in other words, in insisting (and in proving) that whenever we are ignorant of an object we must also be ignorant of a subject — this system teaches that we are ignorant of an intelligible, that is, not-nonsensical, whole ; whereas ordinary thinking and psychology teach that we are ignorant of an unintelligible and non¬ sensical half (objects per se). It is true that the system, in concluding that there can be no igno¬ rance of the contradictory, limits or abridges our ignorance in that particular direction. But, as has been said, it extends it in another direction, by showing that, in so far as we are ignorant, our igno¬ rance must have for its object not merely one of the factors or elements of cognition, but must have for its object both of them, — the universal no less than the particular element, the subjective no less than the objective factor. Whenever w'e suppose that we can be ignorant of either of these without being ignorant of the other, we suppose that we can be THEORY OF IGNORANCE. 443 ignorant of the contradictory, — an opinion which every one who reflects upon its absurdity will be - inclined forthwith to abandon. Hence it is sub¬ mitted that these Institutes are more humble in their pretensions, and acknowledge more fully the extent of man’s ignorance, than any of those sys¬ tems which lay claim ostentatiously to the virtue of humility, and talk about the infinite particulars which lie beyond our cognisance, without consider¬ ing very critically what they are saying. 10. Eighth Counter-proposition. — “ The object of all ignorance, whatever it may be, need not be Eighth coun- ° , ter-proposi- more than what is usually regarded as the object. t‘on- It need not be the synthesis of the particular and the universal ; but it may be, and it is, mere par¬ ticular things by themselves. It need not consist of a subjective and an objective element — but it may consist of the objective element merely, or of the subjective element merely ; in other words, a subject without any object, or olyects without any subject, may be the object of our ignorance.” 11. To give stability to this counter-proposition, either of two points would require to be made good. The gi-ounds — either, first, that objects without any subject or rests are false, self can be known, and that self or the subject with¬ out any object can be known; or, secondly, that there can be an ignorance of what cannot possibly 444 INSTITUTES OF METAPHYSIC. PROP, be known. If either of these points could be esta- - blished, the counter-proposition would stand firm, and Proposition VIII. would be overthrown. But it is conceived that both of these positions have been thoroughly subverted in the course of these discussions, and directly opposite conclusions de¬ monstratively reached ; and therefore this counter¬ proposition must just submit quietly to go the way of all its brethren. Illustration of the differ¬ ence between the specula¬ tive and the ordinary view in regard to the object of ignorance. 12. The following illustration will throw addi¬ tional light on the difference between the doc¬ trine here advocated in regard to the object of our ignorance and the opinion maintained by ordinary thinking. In our ordinary moods we conceive that objects without any subject are, to a large extent, the objects of our ignorance ; and we hold this opi¬ nion, because, in our ordinary moods, we suppose that objects without any subject are, to some extent, the objects of our knowledge. But in our ordinary moods we never fall into the absurdity of suppos¬ ing that jects without any oh are the objects of our ignorance. If a man were told that jects without oh were what he was ignorant of, he would have some reason to complain that he was being made a fool of. He always conceives himself to be ignorant of what is exjiressed by the whole word “ object,"' and not of what is expressed by any one of its syllables. In the same way these Institutes would be stultified if they were to admit that ob- THEOKY OP IGNOEANCE. 445 jects without a subject could be the objects of our ignorance, because object-plus-subject is their whole word for the mind — just as object is the whole word for the mind, in the estimation of popular thinking. “ Object subject ” is to speculation precisely what “object^' is to ordinary thinking; and hence, just as ordinary thinking always sup¬ poses that objects of one kind or another are the only objects either of our knowledge or of our igno¬ rance, and would be outraged by the statement that a mere part or syllable of this word could express either what we know, or what we are igno¬ rant of — so speculative thinking maintains, and calls upon people to understand, that objects-y)?MS- a-subject are the only objects either of our know¬ ledge or of our ignorance, and is equally outraged by the supposition that any of the syllables of this entire and indivisible mental word can give a true or intelligible expression either to what we know or to what we are ignorant of. The want of accordance between language and thought — or, otherwise expressed, the fact that thought is not susceptible of being divided or split down into fractions to such an extent as words appear to di¬ vide it into, and consequently the necessity of guarding against the supposition that the division of words has a corresponding analysis of thoughts — might furnish a theme for much interesting dis¬ cussion ; but this is a topic which cannot be pur¬ sued at present. PROP. VIII. 44G INSTITUTES OF METAPHYSIC. PROP. VIII. The substan¬ tial and abso lute in igno¬ rance. The main result of the agnoiology sliortly stated. 13. As a corollary of this proposition, it follows that object -i- subject is the only substantial and absolute in ignorance, just as this synthesis is the only substantial and absolute in cognition. It is, however, unnecessary to enunciate this truth in a distinct and separate proposition ; suffice it to say, that the mere factors of this synthesis cannot either of them be the substantial and absolute in ignor¬ ance, because there can be no knowledge of them apart from each other ; and there can be no igno¬ rance of what there can be no knowledge of. Hence, the only absolute and substantial reality of which we can be ignorant is a subject in union with ob¬ jects of some kind or other. 14. The short summing up is this — a summary which refers in part to the epistemology. The ordinary thinker — that is, every man in his habitual and unphilosophical moods — supposes, first, that he can know less than he can really know ; hence he supposes that mere objects can be known. Second¬ ly, he supposes that he can think of less than can be known ; hence he supposes that mere objects can be conceived. Thirdly, he supposes that he can be ignorant of less than can be known ; hence he supposes that mere objects are what he can be igno¬ rant of. The first and second of these inadverten¬ cies are corrected in the epistemology. It is there shown that we cannot know less than we can really THEOKY OP IGNORANCE. 447 know, and that, therefore, mere objects cannot be prop known, but only objects along with oneself or the subject ; further, that we cannot think of less than can be known ; and that, therefore, mere objects cannot be conceived, but only objects along with some self or subject. The main business of the ag- noiology has been to correct the third inadvertency, and to show that we cannot be ignorant of less than can be known, and that, therefore, mere objects can¬ not be what we are ignorant of, but only objects along with some self or subject. From these con¬ siderations it is obvious that philosophers have erred, not, as is usually supposed, in consequence of striving to know more than they are competent • to know, but in consequence of striving to know less than they are permitted to know by the laws and limits of intelligence ; and further, that they have gone astray, not, as is usually supposed, in consequence of denying our ignorance to be as great as it really is, but in consequence of maintaining that our ignorance is not so great as it really is — in other words, in consequence of maintaining that we are ignorant of less than it is possible for any intelligence to be ignorant of 15. In conclusion, and in reference to what is said in the first proposition of the agnoiology (Obs. concluding 6.), this remark has to be added, that all the coun- ter-propositions would have stood their ground, and 448 INSTITUTES OF METAPHYSIC. PROP. VIII. the propositions would consequently have been overthrown, if a first and second counter-proposi¬ tion could have been laid down and proved. Let it be assumed as Counter-proposition 1. that igno¬ rance is no imperfection or defect, and a ground would be secured for a second counter-proposition denying that ignorance is possibly remediable ; be¬ cause ignorance is remediable only on the ground that it is a defect. This basis, if it could be con¬ ceded, would establish all the other counter-propo¬ sitions as true ; for if ignorance is not a defect, and is not remediable, there may, indeed there must, be an ignorance of what cannot possibly be known. Hence Proposition III. would fall. Again, if there could be an ignorance of what could not possibly be known, there might, and must, be an ignorance of objects per se, and of material things per se : Propositions IV. and V. would fall. Again, if there could be an ignorance of what could not possibly be known. Proposition YI. would fall ; because, in these circumstances, there might he an ignorance of the particular without the universal element of cognition, or of the universal without the particular element. Again, Proposition VII. would fall for the same reason. Further, the same concession would effect the destruction of Proposition VIII. ; because, if there could be an ignorance of what could not possibly be known, object-y)Zus-subject would no longer be the only possible object of igno- THEORY OP IGNORANCE. 449 rjiiic©. In shortj tliG ovGrtlirow of tho wliolo ngnoi- ology would be the consequence of the denial of the proposition which asserts that ignorance is a defect or imperfection. But inasmuch as this denial is absurd and demonstratively false, it is conceived that the theory is in no danger of being subverted on that or on any other ground. For the satisfac¬ tion, however, of those who may refuse to embrace this new theory of ignorance, the logical data on which their opposition must be grounded have been considerately supplied. PROP. VIII. w ^<.^iii .i^avrt ;!;; *- -ir. V> g#J>H Hi t<^-»da2iti«‘rt >n^ i»/:>i^(w «of * 4e 8i U^')^ ^tii ^^JixiOKjo 4 ; .iojt4«ffc.f44^#3W4g^ >* '^.>^.^^^J',,»fa«^^«iA.' -J ., .V^' '. » .■ ^ ../4fi]k|»(a^TeJM4i*ih4'U«w j ^4h. ^^/.'. ‘- ’ i ; ^if^Wm/'''"^ ^ , ^ i» l#p. •♦ft' . '■*‘>WW^fc: r r tt A i -Jl ♦ d""' • #5 r I j \ . ' 1*^.^ - V- >. ■ 1 ^ JL^-'^i^* -»v ■'■«^’' ■1 * ■- ■■ ■ ’»ViJ^‘ MfKH S»V •1 , jf . , ^ 7 : A'<« 1 •»^- ■< <»*■< ii«0 K. Vv>' • M SECTION III. THE ONTOLOGY, OR THEORY OF BEING. „ I 'Mill Mi VTK. r'' ••>£:' -I \ 4V‘i . ri ' , ' (V '■' ' ' ■*' , ^ 'i'' ^ * y ' <.■ If' ■ : : -4 - ;'-^i 1 I T a a a '.s; :|H- ‘ p.r ■ f ^tC -;■ t ' ,''*'r(l'‘o>oey. and absolute and independent existence. Psycho- a decided leaning towards this posi¬ tive asseveration, which is advocated more particu¬ larly by our whole Scottish philosophy of common sense. After all that has been said, it is unneces¬ sary to do more than refer to this opinion as part of the debris of a defunct and exploded psychology, which is now swept away and effaced for ever from science by these ontological institutes. 3. When it is asserted that material things have no Absolute Existence, this must not be confounded In what sense with the affirmation that they have no existence at tilings exist. all. They have a spurious, or inchoate, or depend¬ ent existence. This has always been conceded by genuine speculation, although even this kind of existence may have been denied to them by some 474 INSTITUTES OF METAPHTSIC. PROP, spurious systems of idealism. But absolute or inde- - pendent existence only arises when the incipience of material things is supplemented by the element necessary to complete it. In short, they are what the Greek speculators called the ovra (that is, the contradictory), but they are not the 6vk 6Wa (that is, the intelligibly non-existent). By themselves, ma¬ terial things are not nothing, but they are nonsense. PROPOSITION VII. WHAT ABSOLUTE EXISTENCE IS NOT. Absolute existence is not the particular by itself, nor is it tlie universal by itself ; in other words, particular things prescinded from the universal have no absolute exist¬ ence, nor have universal things prescinded from the particular any absolute existence. DEMONSTKATION. There can be no knowledge of the particular by itself (Prop. VI. Epistemology). There can be no ignorance of the particular by itself (Prop. VI. Ag- noiology). But absolute existence is that of which there is either a knowledge or an ignorance (Prop. V. Ontology). Therefore absolute existence is not the particular by itself. Again, there can be no knowledge of the universal by itself (Prop. VI. Epistemology). There can be no ignorance of the universal by itself (Prop. VI. Agnoiology). But PROP. VII. Seventh counter¬ proposition. 47(5 INSTITUTES OF METAPHYSIC. absolute existence is that of which there is either a knowledge or an ignorance (Prop. V. Ontology). Therefore absolute existence is not the universal by itself. And thus particular things prescinded from the universal have no absolute existence, nor have universal things prescinded from the particular any absolute existence. OBSERVATIONS AND EXPLANATIONS. 1. Seventh Counter -proposition. — “Particular things by themselves, or prescinded from the uni¬ versal, have, or may have, an absolute existence — although it is absurd to suppose that universal things prescinded from the particular have any existence, or at least any existence out of the mind which fabricates them.'’' This counter-proposition carries out into ontology the sixth counter-proposition of the epistemology. Both of them are false, and are subverted by their corresponding propositions. PROPOSITION VIIL WHAT ABSOLUTE EXISTENCE IS NOT. Absolute Existence is not the ego pe7' se, or the mind in a state of pure indetermination — that is, with no thing or thought present to it : in other words, the ego per se is not that Avhich truly and absolutely exists. DEMONSTRATION. The ego per se, or the mind in a state of pure indetermination, is what we cannot know (Prop. IX. Epistemology) : it is what we cannot be igno¬ rant of (Prop. VII. Agnoiology). But Absolute Existence is what we either know or are ignorant of (Prop. V. Ontology). Therefore Absolute Existence is not the ego per se, or the mind in a state of pure indetermination ; in other words, the ego per se is not that which truly and absolutely exists. OBSERVATIONS AND EXPLANATIONS. 1. Eighth Counter-proposition. — “Absolute exist- 478 INSTITUTES OF METAPHYSIC. VIII. PROP, ence is, or may be, the ego per se ; in other words, the mind in a state of pure indetermination, or with to-propos^’ no thing or thought present to it, is, or may be, tion. Being in itself/ Importance of the ego as a consti¬ tuent of Absolute Existence. 2. It must be borne in mind, that although Ab¬ solute Existence cannot be attributed to the ego or mind 'per se, still this element is infinitely the more important of the two in the constitution of Absolute Existence, just as it is infinitely the more important of the two in the constitution of Absolute Cogni¬ tion. In both cases this is the essential, eternal, and universal factor, while the other element is contingent, temporary, and evanescent. 3. It has further to be remarked that the reduc- why the tiou of the ego (or universal) per se to the condition the egoper se of a Contradiction is important on this account, that diction is unless the reduction had been effected, matter (the particular) could not have been reduced to the pre¬ dicament of a contradiction either ; for the same measure which is dealt out to one of the factors of cognition must be dealt out to the other. But if matter per se had not been reduced to a contradic¬ tion, it could not have been disfranchised of Abso¬ lute Existence ; in which case materialism, with all its gloomy consequences, would have carried, while it also blackened, the day. PROPOSITION IX. THE ORIGIN OF KNOWLEDGE. Matter is not tlie cause of our perceptive cog¬ nitions ; in other words, our knowledo:e of material things is not an effect proceed¬ ing from, and brought about by, material things. DEMONSTRATION. Matter is the particular part, or peculiar element, of some of our cognitions — of those, viz., which we term perceptions (Prop. VII. Epistemolog}^. But the part of a cognition cannot be the cause of a cognition. Therefore matter is not the cause of our perceptive cognitions; in other words, our knowledge of material things is not an effect proceeding from, and brought about by, material things. OBSERVATIONS AND EXPLANATIONS. 1. It is at this place that the question as to the 480 INSTITUTES OF METAPHYSIC. PROP. IX. Question as to the origin of knowledge — lias been erroneously treated. The assump¬ tion which vitiates the discussion. origin of our knowledge falls to be discussed, and that the opinions of philosophers respecting it come under review : for this question is ontological, just as the inquiry into the actual character and com¬ position of our cognitions is epistemological. It is of the utmost importance that these inquiries should be kept distinct, and that the nature of our knowledge should be accurately ascertained, before any attempt is made to explain its origin. This order, however, has been reversed : philoso¬ phers have treated of the origin of knowledge before they had attained to any definite concep¬ tion of its nature ; they explored the causes of the fact, but the fact itself they left undetermined : and to this reversal of the right method of research are to be attributed all the perplexities and errors in which they got involved in the course of the con¬ troversy. 2. The fundamental assumption which has hither¬ to rendered abortive every attempt to settle this question, is the hypothesis that matter exists, not as an element of cognition, but in an absolute capa¬ city, or irrespective of all intelligence. Whether this assumption be true or not, it was not a posi¬ tion to start from. It is an ontological offshoot from an uncritical and erroneous epistemology. To comprehend the salient points of the controversy respecting the origin of knowledge, and the per- THEORY OF BEING. 481 plexities by which it has been beset at every stage, prop. we have but to trace this assumption into its conse- - — quences. 3. The attribution of absolute existence to mate¬ rial things leads at once to the inference, that mat- ter operates as a cause in the production of our cog- SS.’. nitions. And accordingly, when the question as to the origin of knowledge arose, this was the solution proposed — an explanation which finds expression in the following counter-proposition. Ninth Counter¬ proposition “ Matter is the cause of our percep¬ tive cognitions ; in other words, our knowledge of material things is an effect proceeding from, and brought about by, material things.” This opinion is the first consequence which flows from the as¬ sumption referred to. 4 This consequence may seem harmless enough; the next is more serious. If our knowledge, or per- second con- ception, of material things be an effect produced by of'®eprei’'n"® material things, this knowledge (the effect) must be all that we truly apprehend : the material things themselves (the cause) must elude or transcend our observation. The position is, that matter is not itself our knowledge, or any part of our knowledge, . but is merely the cause of our knowledge, the origi¬ nator of our perceptions : hence the perceptions alone are the objects of the mind ; their cause 2 H 482 INSTITUTES OF METAPHYSIC. PROP, comes not within the pale of our cognition. And IX. - thus the second consequence of the assumption that material things have an absolute existence, is the V inevitable conclusion that we have no knowledge of them, but only a knowledge of their effects. Thus arises, and thus arose, the doctrine of a representa¬ tive perception — a doctrine which, substituting for the real material universe what Berkeley calls “ a false imaginary glare,” is alike unsatisfactory to the philosophical, and to the unphilosophical, mind, 5. The earliest form of the representative hypo- The eiiriiest tliesis is that which is known in the history of phi- form of re- . 1 T n / • n presenta- losophv Under the name oi Physical Innux (■injiuxus physicus). The advocates of this scheme main¬ tained that real things are the efficient causes of • our perceptions, the word “efficient” being em¬ ployed to signify that the things, by means of some positive power or inherent virtue which they pos- • sessed, were competent to transmit to the mind a knowledge of themselves. This theory held that man v/as cognisant, not of things themselves, but only of certain ideal copies, or intelligible tran¬ scripts of them ; and that these were caused, first, or remotely, by the operation of material things on the senses, and secondly, or proximately, by the operation of the senses on the mind ; so that the doctrine of physical influx was rather an hypothesis . explanatory of the way in which the senses or ner- THEOEY OP BEING. 483 vous system affected the mind, than of the way in prop. which external objects affected the nervous system. — — It attempted, by invoking the casual relation, to explain the intercourse which subsists between tlie body and the mind. External objects were sup¬ posed to operate on the nervous system by the • transmission of some kind of influence— the nervous system was supposed to carry on the process by the transmission of certain images or representations — and thus our knowledge of external things was sup¬ posed to be brought about. The representations alone came before the mind ; the things by which they were caused remained occult and unknown. 6. Ihe first important correction which this crude hypothesis sustained was at the hands of the correction of French philosopher Des Cartes. The doctrine was, that things remotely, and the senses proximately, • transmitted to the mind a kno*i?ledge of external objects. Des Cartes had an eye for the fallacy of that position. He saw that things and the senses could no more transmit cognitions to the mind than a man can transmit to a beggar a guinea which he has not got. Material things, including of course the organs of sense, have no knowledge to give to • man 5 and therefore man cannot receive his know¬ ledge from material things ; in other words, matter cannot be the efficient cause of our perceptions. The explaining cause is not adequate to the produc- . 484 INSTITUTES OF METAPHYSIC. PROP. IX. Conse¬ quences of the Cartesian correction. Scepticism and idealism arise. tion of the effect to be explained. To derive our perceptions of material things from material things, is to derive them from a source in which they are not contained, and which is therefore not com¬ petent to impart them. Such is the substance of the revolution effected by Des Cartes on this the standard opinion in the common schools of philo¬ sophy ; and the downfall of the hypothesis of Phy¬ sical Influx was the result. 7. The Cartesian reform was followed by import¬ ant consequences. The question now arose — What, then, is the cause of our knowledge ; from whence do we derive our cognitions of external objects ? If material things and the organs of sense do not originate them, — what originates them ? Their effi¬ cient cause, answers Des Cartes, their true source, is the power and will of the Deity, who, containing within Himself every perfection, is competent to produce and to impart to us perceptions, or what¬ ever else he ma.y be pleased to produce and to impart. 8. This solution gave a new turn to the discus¬ sion. Now scepticism in regard to the existence of material things broke loose. Now the question emerged — What proof is there that matter exists at all? So long as material things were held to be the causes of our perceptions, a sufficient guarantee THEOEY OF BEING. 485 for their existence was obtained | for we can scarcely maintain that one thing is the cause of another, without conceding that the former thing exists. But now, when this doctrine is set aside as unten¬ able — now, when it is held that material thincrs O are not, and cannot be, the causes of our percep¬ tions, and when it is further maintained that these are to be attributed to an entirely different origin, the question may reasonably be put — What evi¬ dence is there in support of the existence of mat¬ ter ? The material universe is now superfluous and otiose. It has no part to play — no purpose to ful¬ fil. Our perceptive cognitions are brought about without its aid. All goes on as well, or better, without it. It is a mere cumberer of the ground, 'Axpeiov Ka\ napdopov defias. Why not say at once that it is a nonentity ? Thus scepticism and idealism are the consequences, not very far removed, of the assumption that matter has an absolute existence. Commencing with the hypothesis that matter exists absolutely, philoso¬ phers have been led on, by the inevitable windings of the discussion, to doubt or to deny that it exists at all. 9. It might have been expected that these per¬ plexities would have thrown philosophers back upon a severer examination of the data on which PROP. IX. 48G INSTITUTES OF METAPHYSIC. PROP. IX. The Carte¬ sian salvo — hypothesis of “ Occasional Causes.” Its insuffi¬ ciency. they were proceeding, and would have suspended their inquiry into the origin of our knowledge until the state of the fact as to its actual nature had been determined. But no such result ensued. Phi¬ losophers still busied themselves about its causes ; and in order to salve the scepticism which his own reform had provoked, Des Cartes came to the rescue of the material universe armed with these two argu¬ ments : first, that matter, although not the cause, is nevertheless the occasion, of our perceptions. It affords the occasions on which the Deity (the effi¬ cient cause and true source of all our knowledge) calls up in our minds the appropriate presenta¬ tions. This is the Cartesian doctrine of occasional, as distinguished from efficient, causes. And second¬ ly, he argues that the Deity, from whom can pro¬ ceed no fallacious beliefs, has implanted within us a conviction of the independent existence of mate¬ rial things. To which arguments the answer is, that if our perceptions are originated by the Divine Power, it is more probable that they are called into being directly, and not through the circuitous pro¬ cess alleged by the Cartesians, in which certain material existences, of which we know nothing, are supposed to serve as the occasions on which the Deity is pleased to bring about in our minds cer¬ tain corresponding representations; and, secondly, that it is not true that any man really believes in the existence of material things out of all relation THEOEY OF BEING. 487 to an intelligent mind — for, however much we may deceive ourselves on this point, it is certain that we cannot believe in that which we cannot, by any possibility, think of — and it is certain that we can think of material things only in association with our own, or some other, intelligence. 10. Mallebranche, following in the wake of Des Cartes, advocated similar opinions. He perceived, and avoided, the contradiction involved in the sup¬ position that material things cause our cognitions Our perceptions of extension, figure, and solidity (the primary qualities, as they are called), he attri¬ buted to the direct operation of the Deity. This is what he means by our “ vision of all things in God,” who, according to Mallebranche, is the “light of all our seeing.” Our sensations of heat, colour, and so forth, he referred to certain laws of our own nature. Although material things are superfluous and otiose by the terms of this, no less than by the terms of the Cartesian hypothesis, still INIallebranche asserts their independent existence on the authority of revelation, as Des Cartes had attempted to vindi¬ cate it on the ground of natural belief — “ In the be¬ ginning God created the heavens and the earth ” — as if that statement was equivalent to the declara¬ tion that material things were invested with an ab¬ solute existence, and had a subsistency out of rela¬ tion to all intelligence ! PROP. ix. Malle- branche : 'His “ Vision of all things in God.” 488 INSTITUTES OF METAPHYSIC. PROP. IX. Leibnitz : His “ Pre- establislied Harmony.” Character of these liypotheses. 11. Leibnitz, also, studiously avoided all acknow- ■ ledgment of matter as the transmitting cause of our cognitions. He supposed a double series of pheno¬ mena running on simultaneously in the mind and in the body, and coincident, although absolutely independent of each other. No influence of any kind passed from mind to body, or from body to mind ; but the preconcerted arrangements of each brought about an entire concordance between the two series of changes — a concordance in which the mental representations were never at variance with ' the bodily impressions, although in no respect in¬ duced by them ; nor the bodily movements ever at cross-purposes with the mental volitions, although in no degree dependent upon them — -just as two clocks may keep time together, although no sort of influence is transmitted from the one to the other. This is the doctrine of Pre-established Harmony — a scheme which differs from that of “ occasional causes ” only in this respect, that by the former hypothesis the accordance of the mental and the bodily phenomena was supposed to be pre-arranged, once for all, by the Divine Power, while by the latter their harmony was supposed to be effected by His constant and ever-renewed interposition. 12. Extravagant as these hypotheses may seem, they are less so than the position which they con¬ troverted ; the doctrine, namely, of physical influx. THEOEY OP BEING. 489 which asserted that our cognitions were caused or prop, produced by material things operating upon our - minds. They are commendable, as evidences of a reaction or struggle against that contradictory posi¬ tion. But they did not go to the root of the mis¬ chief ; they involved no critical inquiry into the essential structure of all cognition ; and hence they failed to reduce matter per se to the condition of a contradiction. 13. Locke’s explanation of the origin of our knowledge differs from the opinions of his prede- Locke’s ex- cessors only by being more ambiguous and perfunc- tory. Material things exist, and give rise to our sensible ideas or perceptions, because they are fitted to do so by the Divine law and appointment. That sentence contains the substance of all that has been advanced by Locke on the subject now under con¬ sideration, and the doctrine which it expresses is obviously a mere jumble of the four hypotheses which have just been commented on. Like his predecessors, Locke was a staunch representation- ist. The philosopher next to be named was the first who distinctly promulgated a doctrine of intui¬ tive perception, although he seldom gets credit for having done so. 14 Berkeley’s merits and defects have been already touched upon (see Epistemology, Prop. 490 INSTITUTES OF METAPHYSIC. PROP. IX. Berkeley : His doctrine of intuitive perception.. XXII. Obs, 14). His system, with all its imper¬ fections, was an immense improvement upon those . which had preceded it. It was an inquiry, not so much into the orygin as into the nature of our knowledge. It was mainly a polemic against the doctrine of representationism in all its forms. Other systems had declared that our perceptions were representative of material realities — that the perceptions alone were known — that the realities themselves were occult. Looking merely to the actual structure, and not to the supposed origin, of our cognitions, Berkeley brought the material re¬ ality itself into the immediate presence of the mind, by showing, not indeed that it was the object, but that it was -part of the object of our cognition. The total and immediate object of the mind is, with Berkeley, the material thing itself (and no mere representation of it), with the addition, however, of some subjective and heterogeneous element. It is a synthesis of the objective and the subjective ; the thing plus the sense (sight or touch, &c.), a unit in¬ divisible hy us at least. Berkeley thus accomplished the very task which, fifty or sixty years afterwards, Reid laboured at in vain. He taught a doctrine of in¬ tuitive, as distinguished from a doctrine of represen¬ tative, perception ; andhetaughtitontheonlygrounds on which such a doctrine can be maintained. 15. Berkeley’s system, however, was invalidated THEOEY OF BEING. 491 by a fundamental weakness, which was this, that it was rather an exposition of the contingent structure of our knowledge, than an exposition of the neces¬ sary structure of all knowledge. As has been stated elsewhere, he does not sufficiently distinguish the necessary from the contingent laws of cognition, or distinctly lay down the former as binding on intelli¬ gence universally. He saw that every object of our cognition must contain and present a subjective element. But he neither declared what that ele¬ ment was, nor did he clearly show that all intelli¬ gence was necessarily subject to the same law, and that every object of all cognition must involve a subjective or non-material ingredient. Hence he failed to reduce matter per se to the condition of a contradiction ; because if matter can be known per se by any possible intelligence — if it can, in any circumstances, be apprehended without some sub¬ jective ingredient being apprehended along with it — we are not entitled to set it down as the contra¬ dictory in itself. To fix it as this, it must be fixed as the absolutely and necessarily and universally unknowable. Berkeley’s system scarcely rises to this position. He has nowhere made out clearly that matter per se is the contradictory to all intelli¬ gence, although he may have shown with sufficient distinctness that it is the contradictory to our intel¬ ligence. But if matter per se is not the contradic¬ tory to all intelligence, it may possibly exist — exist PROP. IX. Ilis funda¬ mental defect. 492 INSTITUTES OF METAPHYSIC. PROP, with a true and absolute existence. But if matter pef se can exist exclusively, Berkeley's ontology breaks down — for his conclusion is that the subject and the object together^ the synthesis of mind and the universe, is what alone truly and absolutely ex¬ ists, or can exist. 16. Held mistook entirely the scope of the Ber- Reid. Ill's keleian speculations. He actually supposed Berke- niisunder- . ^ ^ Berkeley”^ Isj to have been a representationist, and that the only difference between him and the ordinary dis¬ ciples of this school, w’as, that while they admitted the existence of matter, he denied it, and was wh9,t is vulgarly termed an idealist. Berkeley is sup¬ posed by Reid to have agreed with the representa- tionists in holding that mere ideas or perceptions were the immediate objects of the mind ; but to have differed from them in throwing overboard the occult material realities which these ideas were sup¬ posed to represent. This interpretation of Berke- leianism is altogether erroneous. Instead of ex¬ ploding the material reality, Berkeley, as has been said, brought it face to face with the mind, by showing that it was a part, although never the whole, of the object of our cognition ; and this, it \ is submitted, is the only tenable or intelligible ground on which the doctrine of intuitive percep¬ tion can be placed. This position, however, was totally misconceived by Dr Reid ; and hence he THEORY OF BEING. 493 has done very gross, although unintentional, in¬ justice to the philosophical opinions of his pre¬ decessor. 17. In regard to Dr Keid’s own doctrine of intui¬ tive perception and his supposed refutation of repre- sentationism, it must not be disguised that both of them are complete failures. His ultimate object was to vindicate the absolute existence of the material universe, which, having been rendered problemati¬ cal by the Cartesian speculations, had been denied on much better grounds by the dialectic of Berkeley — these grounds being, that we could only know it cuTYi ctlio, and therefore could neither conceive nor believe in it per se. To accomplish this end, Eeid set on foot a doctrine of intuitive perception, in which he endeavoured to show that material reali¬ ties stand face to face with the mind, without any¬ thing more standing there along with them. This at least must be understood to have been his im¬ plied, if not his express, position ; for what kind of logic would there be in the argument — material things are known to exist, not by themselves, but only in connection with something else, therefore they exist by themselves, or out of connection with everything else. Unless, then, we are to charge Dr Eeid with this monstrous paralogism, we must suppose him to have held that we apprehend mate¬ rial things without apprehending anything else at PROP. IX. Reid failed to establish a doctrine of intuitive perception. 494 INSTITUTES OF METAPHYSIC. PROP. IX. His charac¬ ter as a pliilosopher. the same time. If that position could be made good, it would at once establish both the independ¬ ent existence of matter, and a doctrine of intuitive perception. But the position is one which runs counter to every law of human knowledge, both contingent and necessary. Whenever we know material things, we are cognisant of our own senses (sight or touch, &c.) as well : it thus runs counter to the contingent laws. Again, whenever we know material things, we know ourselves as well : it thus runs counter to the necessary laws. This doctrine of intuitive perception, therefore, is a theory which sets at defiance every law of intelligence, and which consequently fails to overtake either of the aims which its author had in view. 18. But Dr Eeid, honest man, must not be dealt with too severely. With vastly good intentions, and very excellent abilities for everything except philosophy, he had no speculative genius whatever — positively an anti-speculative turn of mind, which, with a mixture of shrewdness and naivete altogether incomparable, he was pleased to term “common sense ; ” thereby proposing as arbiter in the contro¬ versies in which he was engaged, an authority which the learned could not well decline, and which the vulgar would very readily defer to. There was good policy in this appeal. The standard of the exact reason did not quite suit him, neither was THEORY OP BEING. 495 he willing to be immortalised as the advocate of mere vulgar prejudices ; so that he caught adroitly at this middle term, whereby he was enabled, when leason failed him, to take shelter under popular opinion ; and when popular opinion went against him, to appeal to the higher evidence of reason. Without renouncing scientific precision when it could be attained, he made friends of the mammon of unphilosophy. What chance had a writer like David Hume, with only one string to his bow, against a man who thus avowed his determination to avail himself, as occasion might require, of the plausibilities of uncritical thinking, and of the re¬ finements of logical reflection? This amphibious method, however, had its disadvantages. At home in the submarine abysses of popular opinion. Dr Reid, in the higher regions of philosophy, was as helpless as a whale in a field of clover. He was out of his proper element. He blamed the atmosphere : the fault lay in his own lungs. Through the gills of ordinary thinking he expected to transpire the pure ether of speculation, and it nearly choked him. His fate ought to be a warning to all men, that in philosophy we cannot serve two mistresses. Our ordinary moods, our habitual opinions, our natural prejudices, are not compatible with the verdicts of our speculative reason. 19. The truth is, that Dr Reid mistook, or rather PROP. IX. 496 INSTITUTES OF METAPHYSIC. PROP. IX. lie mistook the vocation of philo¬ sophy. reversed, the vocation of philosophy. He supposed that the business of this discipline was, not to cor¬ rect, but to confirm the contradictory inadvertencies of natural thinking. Accordingly the main tend¬ ency of his labours was to organise the irrational, and to make error systematic. But even in this attempt he has only partially succeeded. His opinions are even more confused than they are fallacious, more incoherent than they are erro¬ neous ; and no amount of expositorial ingenuity has ever succeeded in conferring on his doctrines even the lowest degree of scientific intelligibility. His claim to take rank j^ar excellence, as the cham¬ pion of common sense, is preposterous, if by com¬ mon sense anything more be meant than vulgar opinion. When the cause of philosophy is fairly and fully pled at the bar of genuine common sense, it is conceived that a decision will be given by that tribunal in favour of the necessary truths of reason, and not in favour of the antagonist verdicts of the popular and unreflective understanding which Hr Eeid took under his protection. Oh, Catholic Reason of mankind, surely thou art not the real, but only the reputed, mother of this anti-philo¬ sophical philosophy : thy children, I take it, are rather Plato’s Demigods and Spinoza’s Titans. 20. At this place, and in special reference to the philosopher (Kant) whose opinions have next to be THEOKY OP BEING. 497 considered, it will be necessary to introduce a short prop, account of the doctrine of “ innate ideas/’ viewed — both in itself and in its history. This theory has JatfidelL been generally, if not universally, misunderstood ; and, as has usually happened in philosophical con¬ troversies, its supporters and its impugners have been both equally at fault. Before commenting on the false, it will be proper to give the true, version of this celebrated ojiinion — and before showing in what sense it is wrong and untenable, to show in what sense it is tenable and right. 21. nightly understood, the doctrine of innate ideas is merely another form of expression for the Rigiit inter¬ initial principle (Prop. I.) of these Institutes. From u“tdne. an accurate observation of th& fact in regard to knowledge, we learn that every cognition, or per¬ ception, or idea, consists, and must consist, of two heterogeneous parts, elements, or factors, — one of which is contributed from within— belongs to the mind itself, and hence is said to be innate; the other of which is contributed from without, and hence may be said to be extranate (if such a word may be used), or of foreign extraction. To render this somewhat abstract statement perfectly intelli¬ gible and convincing, all that we have to do is to translate it into the concrete ; and to affirm, that whenever a man apprehends an external thing (this is the foreign, the extranate ingredient in the total 2 I 498 INSTITUTES OP METAPHYSIC. PROP. IX. cognition), he must apprehend himself also (this is the innate, or home ingredient in the total cogni¬ tion) ; and conversely, that whenever a man appre¬ hends himself (the innate element), he must always apprehend something else, be it a thing or a thought, or a feeling (the foreign element) as well. So that every cognition, or idea, or perception, necessarily consists of two parts, the one of which is native to the mind, and is often denominated a ])riori — to indicate that it is the essential or grounding element ; and the other of which is ex¬ traneous to the mind, and is frequently termed a 'posteriori, to signify that it is the changeable, or accidental, or accruing element. It is thus obvious that the doctrine of innate ideas, when properly understood, is merely another form of the doctrine advanced in the first proposition of the epistemo¬ logy ; and, further, that it is merely another phasis of the doctrine of “ the universal and the particu¬ lar” propounded in the sixth proposition of that same section. The me is the innate, or a priori, or universal, part of every cognition, perception, or idea: things, or thoughts, or states of mind what¬ soever, (the not-me) are the extranate, a posteriom, or particular part of every cognition, perception, or idea. 22. The circumstance, ’then, above all others, to be attended to in coming to a right comprehension THEOEY OF BEING. 499 of this theory is, that the word “innate” is never prop. to he understood in reference to ideas, but only in — ^ reference to a part of every idea, and that neither stance to be is the word ‘^foreign, or acquired, or extraneous,” Attended to ' ’in consider- ever to be understood in reference to ideas, but 1"“^ only in reference to a part of every idea. There are thus no innate ideas, and no extranate ideas ; but every idea or cognition has an element which is innate, and an element which is not so — every cog¬ nition, in short, is both innate and extranate — is a synthesis constituted by an a priori part and an a posteriori part. This consideration, of course, fixes these elements (when considered apart from each other), as necessarily unknowable and contradictory. 23. Hence the misconception, above all others to be avoided, if we would form a correct notion — in- The miscon- deed, any notion at all of this theory — is the sup- particularly position that some (one class) of our cognitions or against, ideas are innate ; and that others (another class) are originated from without ; in other words, the blunder most particularly to be guarded against, is the opinion that the two factors (original and de¬ rivative) of our cognitions are themselves cognitions, or can be themselves whole ideas. If this were the theory it would indeed be a portentous, purposeless, and unintelligible chimera. 24. Strange to say, no philosopher that can be 500 INSTITUTES OF METAPHYSIC. PROP. IX. This niiscon ception has never been guarded against by any philo¬ sopher. lienee tlie ineptitude of the contro¬ versy. named has avoided this error. They have agreed, to a man, in thinking that the word “innate” re¬ ferred to a particular class of our ideas — and not to a of each of our ideas ; and that the word “foreign” or “derived” or “ extraneous,” referred to another class of our ideas, and not to apart of each of them. In short, they have fallen into the mistake already explained at considerable length under the Sixth Proposition of the Epistemology, Obs. 13-17. The advocates, equally with the op¬ ponents of the theory, have misapprehended the nature of the analysis on which it proceeded. They have mistaken elements for kinds. Those who maintained the doctrine, supposed that one kind or class of our ideas had its origin from within the mind, and that another kind or class of our ideas had its origin from without ; while their opponents, never doubting that this was the point properly at issue, denied that any of our ideas were innate, and attributed the whole of them to an extraneous origin. Accordingly, the controversy concerning innate ideas has been one in which neither of the parties engaged had any conception of the question properly under litigation. 25. This fundamental mistake has beset the con¬ troversy during every period of its history. Des Cartes, Mallebranche, and Leibnitz were of opinion that some of our ideas came to us from without, and THEOEY OF BEING. 501 that others were geoerated from within ; that one class of our cognitions was innate, or original ; that another class was factitious, or acquired. Over the theory thus irrationally propounded, Locke oh- - tained an easy victory. Had the controversy been put upon the right footing — had the true question been raised. Is there an innate part and an extra¬ neous part in every one of our cognitions ? — and had Locke answered in the negative, and main¬ tained that each of our cognitions embraced only one element — namely, the extraneous, or sensible part, — in that case his position would have been untenable, because it would have been equivalent to the assertion that both factors (inner and outer) were not essential to the formation of all know¬ ledge, and that an idea could subsist with one of its necessary constituents withdrawn. But, as against Hes Cartes, Mallebranche, and Leibnitz, who held that some of our ideas are from without, and others from within, his refutation was triumphant. If any one cognition has its origin wholly from without, we may safely generalise that fact, and assert that the whole of our knowledge is due to an external source. The postulation of an internal element is permissible only because the external element by itself (the mere objective) is no cognition at all, but is pure nonsense, j ust as the postulation of an exter¬ nal element is permissible only because the internal element by itself (the mere subjective, the indeter- PROP. IX. 502 INSTITUTES OF METAPHYSIC, PROP, minate we) is no cognition at all, but is pure non- - sense. This, however, was not the acceptation in which the doctrine of innate ideas was understood at the time when Locke wrote, and therefore he is less to be blamed for having impugned, than his opponents are for having advanced, so inept and irrelevant an hypothesis. 26. Locke’s refutation of the doctrine, as it was In this con- at that time understood, was so complete, that little Kantisas ’ or nothing was heard of ‘‘ innate ideas” for many dL'essore!’ years afterwards. This speculation lay dormant during the ascendancy of sensualism, or the scheme which derives all our knowledge from without, until towards the close of the eighteenth century, when it was again revived under the auspices of the Ger¬ man philosopher Kant. And on what footing does Kant place the resuscitated opinion ? Precisely on the same footing as before. He understands, or rather misunderstands, the doctrine, just as its for¬ mer upholders had misunderstood it. He mistakes elements for kinds. In explaining the origin of our knowledge, he does not refer one part of each of our cognitions to the mind itself, and another part of each of our cognitions to some foreign source ; but he refers some of our cognitions entirely to the one source, and some of them entirely to the other. It is true that Kant is ambiguous, and appears at times as if he had got hold of the right doctrine, namely. THEOEY OF BEING. 503 that the words a priori, or native, on the one hand, . and a 'posteriori, or emph’ical, on the other, apply- only to the elements of our ideas, and not to our ideas themselves. But he more frequently repeats the old error, characterising some of our cognitions as a priori, or original, and others as empirical or acquired. At any rate, his misconception of the true doctrine is proved by the consideration that he nowhere proclaims that the empirical element of cognition (that supplied by the senses) is nonsensi¬ cal and contradictory, when divorced from the ele¬ ment which is supplied by the mind ; and con¬ versely, that the latter element is nonsensical and contradictory, unless when associated with some empirical or extraneous ingredient. Not having made this announcement, Kant must be held to have missed the true theory, and to have taught a doctrine of innate ideas fully as untenable and inept as any propounded by his predecessors. He regards matter per se as the cause of our sensible cognitions ; and altogether he cannot be compli¬ mented on having thrown any new light on the origin of knowledge, or on having extricated the controversy from the confusion into which it had run. 27. The errors and perplexities which have been passed under review might have been avoided, had philosophers addressed themselves assiduously to PROP. IX. 504 INSTITUTES OF METAPHYSIC. PROP. IX. How tliis system of Institutes avoids tliese eiTors. First: it stai ts flora no hypo¬ thesis. • the consideration of knowledge as it actually is, and eschewed at the outset all inquiry into its origin. This is the method which these Institutes have endeavoured uniformly to pursue throughout the first section of the science ; and to its obser¬ vance is to be attributed any credit which they may obtain for having steered clear of the shoals and whirlpools which have shipwrecked all previous systems. The following recapitulation may serve as a memorandum of some of the leading points of the system. 28. First, and generally, this system obtains a great advantage in starting from no hypothesis, either affirmative or negative, in regard to the abso¬ lute existence of the material universe. The affir¬ mative assumption has disconcerted every attempt which has hitherto been made to propound a rea¬ soned theory of knowing ; and the negative assump¬ tion is, of course, equally unwarrantable. The sys¬ tem, therefore, indulges, at the outset, in no opinion in regard to independent material existence either pro or con ; it leaves that point to be determined by the result of the inquiry into the actual charac¬ ter and constitution of knowledge. To this inquiry it adheres closely until it has exhausted all its de¬ tails, and, tracking the knowable through all the disguises and transformations which it can assume, has found that, under all its metamorphoses, it is, at THEORY OF BEING. 505 bottom and in the last resort, essentially the same — the same knowable in all essential respects, sus¬ ceptible though it be of infinite varieties in all its accidental features. 29. Seco7idly, a rigorous inquisition into the structure of the known and knowable, shows us that oneself must always be a part of everything that is known or knowable. The two constituents, therefore, of every cognition which any intelligence can entertain, are itself and — whatever else the other element may be ; for this element, being in¬ definite and inexhaustible, cannot be more specially condescended upon. 80. Thirdly^ this analysis necessarily reduces to a mere part of cognition everything which is known along with that definite part called self ; because, if this definite element must be known (as it must) along with whatever is known, that which is known along with it cannot be a known or knowable whole ; but only a known and knowable part. Thus many things — indeed, everything — which we heretofore regarded as the objects of cognition, turn out, on examination, to be only part-ohjects of cognition. 31. Fourthly. This analysis further reduces the material universe, whether considered in the aggre- PROP. IX. SeconO.ljj ; it finds ttiat all cognition consists of two elements. Thirdly ; it finds that each element is no cogni¬ tion, but only a half or part-cogni¬ tion. 606 INSTITUTES OF METAPHYSIC. PROP. IX. Fourthly: \ tinds that matter is only a half cognition. Fifthly : it establishes “ intuitive,” and over¬ throws “re¬ presenta¬ tive,” per¬ ception. Sixthly : it steers clear of material¬ ism. gate or in detail, to a mere part or element of cog¬ nition. It can be known only along with the other element. The cognition is always the material uni- v^erse (or a portion of it), 'plus the mind or person contemplating it. This synthesis is not merely the only known, but the only knowable. 32. Fifthly. No'w, a doctrine of intuitive per¬ ception can be established on reasonable grounds ; 'now the downfall of represen tationism is insured. A doctrine of intuitive perception arises, indeed, of its own accord, out of the data which have been laid down. Matter, or the external thing, is just as much the immediate object of a man’s mind as he himself is the immediate object of his mind, because it is part and parcel of the total presentation which is before him. Thus the material universe is neither representative of something else, nor is it represented by anything else. It is representative of nothing except itself ; and we apprehend it intuitively — the consideration being borne in mind that we always do and must apprehend ourselves along with it. 33. Sixthly. This system steers clear of material¬ ism, or the doctrine which holds that matter has an absolute existence — is an independent and com¬ pleted entity. The same stroke which reduces mat¬ ter to a mere element of cognition, reduces matter per se (that is, matter dissociated from the other THEOEY OF BEING. 507 element of cognition) to the predicament of a con¬ tradiction. But the contradictory can have no true or absolute existence ; and thus materialism is an¬ nihilated. Its whole strength is founded on the assumption that material objects are completed ob¬ jects of cognition ; in other words, that they can be known without anything else being known along with them. This assumption has been found to be false. The materialist is asked where is the mat¬ ter per se of which you speak ? There it is, said Dr- Johnson, kicking against a stone. But, good Doctor, that is not matter per se, — that is matter cum alio ; and this, we need scarcely say, is what no man ever doubted or denied the existence of 84. Seventhly. This system steers clear of spurious idealism, or the doctrine which holds that matter, in the supposed withdrawal of all intelligence, is a nonentity. Matter is an element, or half-object of cognition. The withdrawal therefore of the other element or half-object (the ego), cannot have the effect of reducing matter to a nonentity ; first, be¬ cause the whole object of cognition is moitev-plus- me, and only half of it has been supposed to be withdrawn ; and, secondly, because there are no nonentities any more than there are entities out of relation to some me or mind. Knowable non¬ entity is always nonentity plus me, just as much as knowable entity is always entity plus me. So PROP. IX. Seventhly ; it steers clear of spurious idealism. 508 INSTITUTES OP METAPHYSIC. PROP. IX. that to suppose matter to become a nonentity in the supposed withdrawal or annihilation of (every) me, would be to suppose it still in connection with the very factor which we profess to have withdrawn. Accordingly the -conclusion is, first, if we can sup¬ pose all intelligence at an end, matter, although it would cease to be an entity, would not become a nonentity. It would become the contradictory — it would be neither nothing nor anything.* And se¬ condly, we can not conceive all intelligence at an end, because we must conceive, under any circum¬ stances, either that something exists or that nothino- • ^ ® exists. But neither the existence nor the non-exist¬ ence of things is conceivable out of relation to an intelligence — and therefore the highest and most binding law of all reason is, that in no circum¬ stances can a supreme mind be conceived to be abstracted from the universe. The system which inculcates these truths may be termed a philosophy of real-idealism. It loses hold of nothing which the unreflective mind considers to be real ; but seizing on the material universe, and combining it inseparably with an additional element, it absorbs it in a new product, which it gives out as the only true and substantial universe — the only universe which any * It is a remarkable confirmation of this conclusion, that Plato found himself unable to afiirm either the existence or the non-exis¬ tence of the material universe se. But not having distinctly re¬ duced matter per se to a contradiction, he failed to fathom and to exliibit the grounds of this inability. THEOEY OF BEING. 509 intellect can think of without rnnnincf into a con- prop. ® IX. tradictiou. - 35. Eighthly. By these considerations this sys¬ tem is absolved from all obligation to point out the EkiUhip: it causes or origin of cognition. Ihe truths which it obligation to ° ° explain the has reached render that question absurd. It is uri- answerable, because it is unaskable. The question kno'lXdge is, What are the conceivable causes in existence which generate knowledge ? And the answer is. That no existence at all can be conceived by an}'’ intelligence anterior to, and aloof from, knowledge. Knowledge of existence — the apprehension of one¬ self and other things — is alone true existence. This is itself the First, the Bottom, the Origin — and this is what all intelligence is prevented by the laws of all reason from ever getting beyond or below. To inquire what this proceeds from, is as inept as to ask what is the Beginning of the Beginning. All the explanations which can be proposed can find their data only by presupposing the very knowledge whose genesis they are professing to explain. In thinking of things as antecedent to all knowledge, some me or mind must always be thought of along with them ; and in thinking of some me or mind as antecedent to all knowledge, some things or deter¬ minations must always be thought of along with it. But the conception of this synthesis is itself the con- • ception of knowledge ; so that we are compelled to 510 INSTITUTES OF METAPHYSIC. PROP. IX. The synthesis of ego and non-ego is original, and not factitious or secondary. assume as the ground of our explanation, the very thing (knowledge) which that ground had been brought forward to explain. 36. And finally, it must be borne in mind that although all cognition has been characterised by this system as a fusion or synthesis of two contradic¬ tories (the ego and non-ego) — that is, of two ele¬ ments which, out of relation to each other, are necessarily unknowable — this does not mean that the synthesis is brought about by the union of two elements, which existed in a state of separation previous to the formation of the synthesis. The synthesis is the primary or original ; the analy¬ sis is the secondary or posterior. The contradictory elements are found by an analysis of the synthesis, but the synthesis is not generated by putting to¬ gether the parts obtained by the analysis, because these parts can be conceived only in relation to each other, or as already put together. PEOPOSITION X. WHAT ABSOLUTE EXISTENCE IS. Alisolute Existence is the synthesis of the subject and object — the union of the uni¬ versal and the particular — the concretion of the ego and non-ego ; in other words, the only true, and real, and independent Existences are minds -together -with- that- which-they-apprehend. DEMONSTRATION. Absolute Existence is either that which we know or that which we are ignorant of, (Prop. V., Ontology). If Absolute Existence is that which we know, it must be the synthe.sis of subject and object — the union of the universal and the particular, the concretion of the ego and the non-ego, because this, and this alone, is knowable (Props. I. II. VI. IX., Epistemology). This synthesis alone is the con¬ ceivable (Prop. XIII., Epistemology). This, and 512 INSTITUTES OF METAPHYSIC. PROP. X. This proposi¬ tion solves the problem of ontology. this alone, is the substantial and absolute in cogni¬ tion (Props. XVII. XXL, Epistemology). Again, if Absolute Existence is that which we are igfnor- ant of, it must equally be the synthesis of subject and object, the union of the universal and the par¬ ticular, the concretion of the ego and the non-ego, because this, and this alone, is what we can be ig¬ norant of (Prop. VIII., Agnoiology). Therefore, whichever alternative be adopted, the result is the same. Whether we claim a knowledge, or profess an ignorance, of the Absolutely Existent, the con¬ clusion is inevitably forced upon us that the Abso¬ lutely Existent is the synthesis of the subject and object — the union of the universal and the particu¬ lar — the concretion of the ego and non-egfo : in other words, that the only existences to which true, and real, and independent Being can be ascribed are minds-together-with-that-which-they-apprehend. OBSEEVATIONS AND EXPLANATIONS. 1. This proposition solves the problem of onto¬ logy. It demonstrates what is — what alone abso¬ lutely exists : and thus the end or aim which it was the business and duty of this section of the science to accomplish, has been overtaken. ■ — (See Intro¬ duction, § 5-1.) A predicate declaratory of its cha¬ racter has been affixed to Absolute Existence, and THEOKY OP BEING. 513 this predicate applies to it equally whether we are prop. cognisant of it, or are ignorant of it. If we are — cognisant of Absolute Existence, it must be object plus subject, because this, and this alone, is what any intelligence can know. If we are ignorant of Absolute Existence, it must be still object plus subject, because we can be ignorant only of what can be known — and object plus subject is what alone can be known. Thus the concluding truth of the ontology is demonstratively established, and comes out all the same whether we claim a know¬ ledge, or avow an ignorance, of that which truly exists. Thus the ultimate end of the system is compassed, — compassed by legitimate means, — and its crowning pledge triumphantly redeemed. — (See Introduction, § 60.) 2. The solution of the ontological problem affords, moreover, an answer to the ultimate question of It answers I .. , -ixTi . • . 1 „ the question philosophy — ^ hat IS truth ? — (See Introduction, 8 whatis 60.) Whatever absolutely is, is true. The ques¬ tion, therefore, is — But what absolutely is? And the answer, as now declared, is, that object plus subject is what absolutely is — that this, and this alone, truly and really exists. This synthesis, ac¬ cordingly, is THE TRUTH : the Ground— below which there is neither anything nor nothing. 3. The reader who has followed the system up to 2 K 514 INSTITUTES OF METAPHYSIC. PROP, this point, should now be at no loss to understand .X.. how the synthesis of the particular and the univer- All Existence ^ ^ isthesyii- {g alone entitled to the name of “the Existent.” thesis of the ftTpartLu-*^ This doctrine, or at least an approximation to it, was the burthen of the philosophy of antiquity — the truth mainly insisted on by the early Greek speculators. But the doctrine at that time, and as they expounded it, was of necessity unintelligible. None of them knew, or at any rate none of them said, what the universal was which entered into the synthesis of Existence. None of them named it. Hence their statement made no impression on the popular mind, and it has remained an enigma to all succeeding generations. No one could understand why the particular (that is, material things by them¬ selves) was denied to be truly existent. But these Institutes have now distinctly shown what this uni¬ versal is, and the darkness is dissipated — the ancient doctrine becomes luminous. The Institutes have shown that this universal is oneself: oneself, first, inasmuch as this element must form a part of - everything which any intelligence can know, (Props. I. II., Epistemology) ; oneself, secondly, inas¬ much as this element must form a part of every¬ thing which any intelligence can conceive, (Props. XII. XIII., Epistemology) ; oneself, thirdly, inas¬ much as this element must form a part of every- thiog which any intelligence can be ignorant of, (Prop. VIII., Agnoiology). These points having THEORY OF BEING. 515 been demonstratively established, it is conceived p^p. that people should have now no difficulty in under- - - standing how oneself or the ego must also form a part of everything which really and truly exists^ and consequently how the Absolutely Existent should in all cases be the union of the universal and the particular ; and further, how Absolute Existence cannot be accorded to the particular — that is, to mere material things — inasmuch as these, by them¬ selves, are the contradictory to all knowledge, and likewise the contradictory to all ignorance ; and, therefore, cannot have true Being ascribed to them, unless we are prepared to maintain that the nonsensical, or that which is neither nothing nor anything, is the truly and absolutely existent. 4. It was formerly remarked (Epistemology, Prop. VL, Obs. 10), that the equation or coincidence of the Thus the .... equation of known and the existent is the ultimate conclusion Known and the which philosophy has to demonstrate. This demon- beln^proved* stration has been supplied, and the conclusion has been reasoned out from the bottom. The universal and the particular (ego and non-ego) in cognition are also in all essential respects the universal and the particular in existence ; or, expressed more popularly, the con¬ clusion is that every true and absolute existence is a consciousness-together-with-its-contents, whatever these contents may be. Thus Knowing and Being are shown to be built up out of the same elements ; 516 INSTITUTES OP METAPHYSIC. PROP. X. The coinci¬ dence of The Absolute in Existence with the Absolute in Cognition lias also been proved. and thus the laws of cognition are demonstrated to be in harmony with the laws of existence ; and thus psychology, the whole spirit of whose teaching is to inculcate the frightful doctrine that there is no parallelism between them, is overthrown. — (Episte¬ mology, Prop. VII., Obs. 13.) 5. It has now, moreover, been shown, by means of strict demonstration, that the substantial and absolute in existence equates, in essentialibus, with the substantial and absolute in cognition. The substantial and absolute in cognition was found to be the synthesis of the ego and non-ego — of the subject and object — of the universal and the par¬ ticular. This same synthesis was found to be the substantial and absolute in ignorance, and hence it follows that this same synthesis is the substantial and Absolute in Existence ; because the substantial and absolute in existence must be either that which we know or that which we are ignorant of. And thus we obtain further proof and corro¬ boration of the coincidence of the Known and the Existent. The ego is the summum genus of ex¬ istence, no less than of cognition. — (Epistemology, Prop. VIL, Obs. 9 and 13.) 6. To remove any ground of misapprehension, it is necessary, at this place, to direct attention to the words “ in essentialibus ” in the preceding para- THEOEY OF BEING. 517 graph. The Absolute, as known by us, has been rmn*. proved to be identical with the existing Absolute, - . ,, . _ . Attention not in all respects accidental as well as essential, called to but only in all essential respects : in other words, f‘"egoing; •1 r ’ paragraph. the Absolute in existence cannot be declared to coincide exactly with the Absolute in our cognition, but only with the absolute in all cognition : or to express the restriction differently — The ontology gives out as the existing Absolute the result which is obtained from the study of the necessary laws of knowledge only, and not the result Avhich is ob¬ tained from the study of both the necessary and the contingent laws of knowledge, (see Epistemology, Prop. XXIL, Obs. 8). An illustration, or concrete example, will enable the reader to understand clearly this somewhat abstract statement. 7. The absolutely Existent which each of us is individually cognisant of, is — himself-apprehending- illustration . 7 , . , . of restriction thmgs-oy-Uie-senses. A man cannot be cognisant —wiiat the ~ „ . ontology of himself merely, or of things merely, or of senses merely. He, therefore, cannot be cognisant of these three as existences, but only as factors or elements of existence ; and the only true and absolute exist¬ ence which he can know is, as has been said, their synthesis — to wit, himself-apprehending-things-62/- the-senses. Now the circumstance to be particu¬ larly attended to is, that the part of the synthesis here printed in italics is contingent in its character. 518 INSTITUTES OF METAPHYSIC. PROP. X. This para¬ graph quali¬ fies a pre¬ vious asser¬ tion. Our five senses are the accidental part of the abso¬ lute in our cognition : they are not a necessary part of the Absolute in all cognition, and therefore they are not a necessary part of every absolute exist¬ ence. Other intelligences may be cognisant of them- selves-apprehending-things-m-oi/^-er-wa^/s-^Auw-we- do. In which case their Absolute, both in cogni¬ tion and existence, would be different from ours, in its accidejitals, but not in its essentials. So that all that the ontology professes to have proved in regard to absolute existence is, that every Ab¬ solute Existence must consist of the two terms — ego and non-ego — subject and object — universal and particular ; in other words, of a self, and some¬ thing or other (be it what it may) in union with a self. 8. It was formerly remarked (Epistemology, Prop. X., Ohs. 21), that it would be necessary in the onto¬ logy to qualify the assertion that “ Plato's intelligible world was our sensible world." The foregoing obser¬ vations may enable the reader to understand to what extent that assertion has to be qualified. Plato’s in¬ telligible world is our sensible world, in so far as all the essential elements both of cognition and of existence are concerned ; but not in so far as the contingent elements, either of cognition or of ex¬ istence, are concerned : in other words, Plato’s intelligible world is our sensible world to this THEOEY OF BEING. 519 extent, that it is that which must embrace a sub¬ jective and an objective factor — an ego and a non- effo — but not to this extent that it is that into O whose constitution (whether considered as known or as existent) such senses as ours must of neces¬ sity enter. Hence what we term the sensible world is the only intelligible or truly existing world in so far as it consists of ourselves and things, but it is not the only intelligible and truly existing world in so far as the senses are embraced in this syn¬ thesis, for these are the contingent and (possibly) variable conditions of the known ; and are conse¬ quently the contingent and (possibly) variable con¬ ditions of the existent. The other terms (ego and non-ego) must co-exist wherever there is either knowledge or existence. Hence it may be truly said that every existence is a co-existence ; and that to attempt, as all psychology does, to cut down this co-existent into two separate existences (mind and its objects), is to aim at the establishment of contradiction in the place of knowledge, and of non¬ sense in the place of existence. 9. A word must here be added to explain in what sense, and to what extent, we are cognisant of absolute existence, and in what sense, and to what extent, we are ignorant of the same. Every man is cognisant of absolute existence when he knows — himself and the objects by which he is PROP. X. In what sense we know, and in what sense we are ignor¬ ant of, Abso¬ lute Exist¬ ence. 520 INSTITUTES OF METAPHYSIC. PROP. X. surrounded, or the thoughts or feelings by which he is visited ; every man is ignorant (in the strict . sense of having no experience) of all absolute ex¬ istence except this — his own individual case. But a man is not ignorant of all absolute existences ex¬ cept himself and his own presentations, in the sense of having no conception of them. He can conceive them as conceivable, that is to say, as non-contra¬ dictory. He has given to him, in his own case, the type or pattern by means of which he can conceive other cases of absolute existence. Hence he can afiSrm, with the fullest assurance, that he is sur¬ rounded by Absolute Existences constituted like himself, although it is impossible that he can ever know them as they know themselves, or as he knows himself. He will find, however, that every attempt to construe to his mind an absolute and real existence which is not a synthesis of subject and object, resolves itself into a contradiction, and precipitates him into the utterly inconceivable. But although absolute existences are innumerable although every example of objects plus a subject is a case of Absolute Existence — there is, neverthe¬ less, only one Absolute Existence which is strictly necessary^ as the next and concluding proposition of the ontology will show. 10. Tenth Counter-proposition. — “ Absolute Existence is not the synthesis of the subject and THEOEY OP BEING. 521 object, &c., — in other words, minds -toge ther-witb- that-which-they-apprehend are not the only true and absolute existences — but that which the mind apprehends may exist absolutely, and out of all re¬ lation to a mind ; while the mind may exist abso¬ lutely, and out of all relation to any thing (or thought) apprehended.” This counter-proposition, which attributes absolute existence to the con¬ tradictory, has been already sufficiently contro¬ verted. PROP. X. Tenth coun' ter-proposi- tion. PKOPOSITION XL WHAT ABSOLUTE EXISTENCE IS NECESSARY. All absolute existences are contingent except one ; in other words, there is One, but only one. Absolute Existence which is strictly necessary ; and that existence is a supreme, and infinite, and everlasting Mind in syn¬ thesis with all things. JDEMONSTEATION. To save the universe from presenting a contradic¬ tion to all reason, intelligence must be postulated in connection with it ; because everything except the synthesis of subject and object is contradictory, is that of which there can be no knowledge (Props. I. IL, Epistemology), and no ignorance (Prop. VIII., Agnoiology). But more than one intelligence does not require to be postulated ; because the universe is rescued from contradiction as effectually by the supposition of one intelligence in connection with it, as by the supposition of ten million, and reason THEORY OF BEING. 523 never postulates more than is necessary. Therefore all absolute existences are contingent except one ; in other words, there is One, but only one, Absolute Existence which is strictly necessary ; and that ex¬ istence is a supreme, and infinite, and eternal Mind in synthesis with all things. OBSERVATIONS AND EXPLANATIONS. 1. In this proposition a distinction is taken be¬ tween contingent absolute existences (for example, human beings together with what they apprehend) and the One Absolute Existence which is necessary. All absolute existences except one are contingent. This is proved by the consideration that there was a time when the world was without man ; and by the consideration that in other worlds there may he no intelligences at all. This is intelligible to rea¬ son. But ia the judgment of reason there never can have been a time when the universe was with¬ out God. That is unintelligible to reason ; because time is not time, but is nonsense, without a mind ; space is not space, but is nonsense, without a mind ; all objects are not objects, but are nonsense, with¬ out a mind ; in short, the whole universe is neither anything nor nothing, but is the sheer contradic¬ tory, without a mind. And therefore, inasmuch as we cannot help thinking that there v/^s a time be¬ fore man existed, and that there was space before PROP. XL Distinction taken in this prop. Onto¬ logical proof of Deity. 524 INSTITUTES OF METAPHYSIC. PROP, XI. mail existod, and that the universe was somethino' or other before man existed 5 so neither can we help thinking, that before man existed, a supreme and eternal intelligence existed, in synthesis with all things. In the estimation of natural thinking, the universe by itself is not the contradictory ; in our ordinary moods we suppose it capable of sub¬ sisting by itself. Hence, in our ordinary moods, we see no necessity why a supreme intelligence should be postulated in connection with it. But specula¬ tion shows us that the universe, by itself, is the con¬ tradictory ; that it is incapable of self-subsistency, that it can exist only cum alio, inasmuch as it can be known only cum alio, and can be ignored only cum alio ; that all true and cogitable and non-contradictory existence is a synthesis of the subjective and the objective ; and then we are compelled, by the most stringent necessity of thinking, to conceive a supreme intelligence as the ground and essence of the Universal Whole. d.hus the postulation of the Deity is not only per¬ missible, it IS unavoidable. Every mind thinks, and must think of God (however little conscious it may be of the operation which it is performing), whenever it thinks of anything as lying beyond all human observation, or as subsisting in the absence or annihilation of all finite intelligences. 2. To this conclusion, which is the crowning truth THEOKY OF BEING. 525 of the ontology, the research has been led, not by prop. any purpose aforethought, but simply by the wind- — — ing current of the speculative reason, to whose guid - forced to this. •ill* T"i 1 m conclusion. ance it had implicitly surrendered itself. That cur¬ rent has carried the system, nolens volens, to the issue which it has reached. It started with no in¬ tention of establishing this conclusion, or any con¬ clusion which was not forced upon it by the in¬ superable necessities of thought. It has found Avhat it did not seek ; and it is conceived that this theistic conclusion is all the more to be depended upon on that very account, inasmuch as the desire or intention to reach a particular inference is almost sure to warp in favour of that inference the reason- ing by which it is supported. Here metaphysics stop ; here ontology is merged in Theology. Philo¬ sophy has accomplished her final work ; she has reached by strict demonstration the central law of all reason (the necessity, namely, of thinking an infinite and eternal Ego in synthesis with all things) ; and that law she lays down as the basis of all religion. 8. Eleventh Counter-proposition. — “ The uni¬ verse by itself, or out of relation to all intelligence. Eleventh . , . ,, . counter-pro- is, or may be, a necessary existence. ihis counter- position, proposition, which is the ground of all atheism, is effectually subverted by the proposition which is the ground of all Theism ; but the atheistic position 526 INSTITUTES OF METAPHYSIC. PROP, could not have been demonstratively turned, had - the universe by itself (objects yer se) not been re¬ duced to the predicament of the contradictory — hence the infinite importance of the dialectical ope¬ ration by which that reduction is effected. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION. 1. In proceeding to offer a short summary of Tile main thcso Institutes, with the view of aiding the im- question is — ® systenfre^-'^ partial reader to form an estimate of their scope, pledges?** character, and results, the main question for con¬ sideration is, how far have they redeemed the pledges held out at their commencement, — how far have they fulfilled the requirements by which they professed themselves bound, — how far have they executed the work which they took in hand ? For it is but reasonable that a science should be tested only in reference to the end which it pro¬ poses, and to the means which it employs, and not in reference to the vague expectations or incon¬ siderate demands of its students. A man may desire to learn astronomy from the study of ana¬ tomy ; but if he does so, he cannot fail to be disap¬ pointed. So, if a man expects to derive from meta¬ physics information which this science does not pro¬ fess to impart, the mistake will lie with the man, and not with the science. This system, then, claims SUMMAEY AND CONCLUSION. 527 the privilege of being tried only by the standard which itself has set up, and of being called to an account only for the work which it undertook to execute. 2. In the first place, it is submitted that these Institutes have complied with the two general re¬ quisitions set forth in the Introduction (§ 2), as ob¬ ligatory on every system which lays claim to the title of philosophy. They are reasoned, and they are true. They are reasoned, inasmuch as their conclusions follow necessarily and inevitably from their initial principle ; and they are true, inasmuch as their initial principle is a necessary truth or law of reason. 3. But in the second place, the point most parti¬ cularly to be considered, as affecting the substance of the inquiry, is this — has the system done the work which it undertook to do ? It undertook to correct the contradictory inadvertencies incident to popular opinion, and the deliberate errors prevalent in psychological science ; and in the room of these inadvertencies and errors to substitute necessary ideas, or unquestionable truths of reason. This was declared to be the business, and the only busi¬ ness, of philosophy, (see Introduction, §§ 44, 45). How, then, has the system acquitted itself in respect to that engagement ? It is sub¬ mitted that the system is both rea¬ soned and true. The chief consideration to be looked to in estimat¬ ing the sys¬ tem. 528 INSTITUTES OF METAPHYSIC. 4 This question will be best answered if we take Its negative a survev of the system rather in its negative or character is ^ to be attend- polemical, than in its positive or constructive, cha- racter. The object of philosophy is twofold — to correct error, and to establish truth. Hence, either aim may be made the more prominent. In pro¬ pounding the system, it was right to lay most stress on the positive establishment of truth, and to be more solicitous about building up the propositions than about overthrowing the counter-propositions. But now, in reviewing the system, it will be proper to reverse this order, and to attend more to the errors which the system corrects than to the truths which it substantiates. The counter-propositions shall now be made to take the lead, — those set forth in the epistemology being, of course, the first to be surveyed. 5. Looking at the system from this point of view. The first step the reader will remark that the first step which the system takes Jnstitutcs take, is the ascertainment of the subjects mlraicharac- ^r topics in reference to which natural thinking and psychology are at fault. These general topics are — first. Knowing and the Known ; secondly. Ignorance ; and, thirdly. Being. These themes are all-comprehensive : every truth and every error which any intellect can harbour, must find a place under one or other of these heads ; and these, accordingly, are the departments into which phi- SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION. 529 losophy is divided, inasmuch as these are the pro¬ vinces where error has to be uprooted, and truth planted. 6. These three heads having been laid down as the general topics in reference to which error and contradiction prevail, the system then proceeds to search out these errors and contradictions, and to deal with them separately and in detail — the first aim of the inquiry, when it descends to these specialties, being to bring to light the leading or capital contradiction out of which all the others proceed. 7. The fundamental error of natural or ordinary thinking is found by tbe system to consist in an oversight of the primary law or condition of all knowledge. Natural thinking overlooks the neces¬ sity to which all intelligence is subject in the ac¬ quisition of knowledge — the necessity, namely, of apprehending itself along with whatever it appre¬ hends. This oversight is equivalent to a denial, and, tested by the criterion of necessary truth, it amounts to a contradiction. It is tantamount to the assertion that a thing is not what it is — that “ A is not A.” Because, in asserting that know¬ ledge can take place without its essential condition being complied with, it affirms that knowledge can be, without being knowledge (see Introduction, 2 L Tlie next step which the system takes in its nega¬ tive or pole¬ mical charac¬ ter. The capital contradiction which the epistemology brings to light and corrects. The second contradiction which it cor¬ rects. 530 INSTITUTES OF METAPHYSIC. § 28). This contradiction, which is largely counte¬ nanced, if not formally ratified, by psychology, is the parent, proximately or remotely, of all the other contradictions which are corrected in the course of the system. It is embodied in Counter¬ proposition I., and subverted by the corresponding proposition — the fundamental article of the Insti¬ tutes. The subject must not only know, but must he known along with, all that comes before it. This single principle reforms the whole charac¬ ter of human thought. Its affirmation is ^the groundwork of all the truths which the S3^stem subsequently advances : its denial is the mother of all the errors which the system subsequently over¬ throws. 8. The contradictory inadvertency in regard to the primary law of knowledge leads directly to a contradictory inadvertency in regard to the object of knowledge. This latter contradiction obtains expression in the second counter-proposition, which asserts that objects can be known without a subject or self being known along with them. Proposition II., which is an immediate offshoot from Proposi¬ tion L, corrects this error, and replaces it by a necessary truth of reason. 9. The next contradiction which the system cor¬ rects is the supposition that the unit or minimum SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION. 531 of cognition can, in any case, consist of less than an objective part and a subjective part. Psychology The thh-d holds that the objective part of a cognition can be whieil it cor- known by itself, and that the subjective part of a cog¬ nition can be known by itself ; or that each of these parts is a possible, if not actual, unit or minimum of knowledge. Proposition III. corrects this con¬ tradiction (which is merely a more explicit form of Counter-proposition II.), by showing that the two parts, objective and subjective together, are required to make up the unit or minimum of cognition, and that each factor by itself is necessarily less than can be known by any intelligence. 10. Counter-propositions IV. and V. express con¬ tradictions which are merely more special examples The fourth of those which have gone before. Natural think- t"adfctionT“’ . 1 1 1 1 p wl'ich it cor¬ ing advocates our knowledge of material things per se, and psychology, if it abandons this position, con¬ tends, at any rate, for our knowledge of certain material qualities per se. This contradiction is one which it is of the utmost importance to point out and correct, inasmuch as it is the basis of mate¬ rialism — a system which, if it could be substan¬ tiated, and an independent existence accorded to material things, would extinguish all the brightest hopes and loftiest aspirations of our nature. The counter-propositions, however, in which these errors are embodied, are etfectually subverted by Proposi- 532 INSTITUTES OF METAPHYSIC. tions IV. and V., by which matter jper se and the material qualities _per se are reduced to the contra¬ dictory or absurd. 11. At this place it is proper to remark that, The proposi- although a close connection subsists among all the tions and . . , i ii i counter-pro- propositions On the one hand, and all the counter- into groups, propositions on the other hand, still there is a stricter affinity among some of them than among others. They fall naturally into groups ; and the system has periodical resting-places where it pauses for a moment, and from whence it again flows for¬ ward with an accession of strength. One of these pauses occurs at the end of Proposition V. The first five propositions, and their corresponding counter-propositions, are to be regarded as forming a group or family which, although closely related to those which follow, are still more closely related to each other. The groups into which the subse¬ quent propositions and counter- propositions fall shall be indicated as we proceed. The sixth contradiction which the epistemology corrects. 12. The error brought to light in Counter-propo¬ sition VI. is the supposition that the knowledge of particular things can precede the knowledge of uni- versals, or rather of a universal (the me). If this counter-proposition were true, the refutation of the preceding counter-propositions would, of course, go for nothing, and materialism would be triumphant. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION. 533 The corrective proposition, however, proves that there must be a universal or common, as well as a particular or peculiar, ingredient in every cogni¬ tion ; and that, consequently, we can have no knowledge of the particular prior to our know¬ ledge of the universal. This proposition is very important, on account of the historical notices connected with it, and the psychological fallacies (Realism, Conceptualism, and Nominalism) which it demolishes. 13. The next contradiction involved in natural thinking, and countenanced by psychology, is the The seventh notion that the ego, or oneself, is, or may be, a spe- which it cor- cial or particular object of cognition, just as material things are supposed to be special or particular ob¬ jects of cognition. Proposition VII. corrects this error by showing that the ego can be known only as the common or universal element in every cognition, just as matter is known as the particular or peculiar element of some cognitions. 14. Counter-proposition VI 11. declares that the ego, or mind, may possibly be known to be mate- The eighth rial. This affirmation is proved to be contradictory winch it cor- by the corresponding proposition, which derives its data of proof from Propositions VI. and VII. These three Propositions (VI. VII. VIII.) form a dis¬ tinct group, and might be studied with advantage 534 INSTITUTES OF METAPHYSIC. The ninth contradiction wliich it cor¬ rects. Tlie tenth contradiction wliicli it cor¬ rects. even out of their relation to the system, as affording the only argument by which the materiality of the mind can be disproved, and its immateriality put upon a right and intelligible footing. 15. The ninth contradiction which the system corrects is found in the assertion that the ego or mind is knowable jjer se, or in a state of pure inde¬ termination. Proposition IX. gives expression to the true doctrine on this point. 16. The contradiction embodied in Counter-pro¬ position X. is one which called for correction, more imperatively, perhaps, than any other error which these Institutes have brought to light and refuted. The doctrine that the senses by themselves are, to some extent, faculties of cognition, and not mere capacities of nonsense, has operated more fatally on the cause of speculative truth, and has retarded the progress of philosophy more effectually, than any other blunder presented in the manifold aberrations of psychology. This doctrine is proved to be con¬ tradictory by Proposition X., and expunged, it is to be hoped, for ever from the pages of metaphysical science. 17. At Proposition XL the system takes a fresh start, — puts forth a new articulation. Hitherto the system has controverted the contradictions incident SUMMAKY AND CONCLUSION. 535 to popular knowledge ; now it controverts the con¬ tradictions incident to popular thinking, laying down . the distinction between knowing and thinking, pre- sentation and representation, which is described in u°c"rrec!f the Epistem., Prop. XL, Obs. 2. The three contra¬ dictions embodied in Counter-propositions XL XU. XIII., and corrected by the corresponding proposi¬ tions, are introduced lest the student should sup¬ pose that thought is competent to perform what knowledge is inadequate to overtake. This opin¬ ion is loosely entertained by ordinary thinking, and formally adopted by psychology ; and therefore it was necessary to controvert it expressly. This refutation is effected by Propositions XI. XII. XIIL, which form one group or family. 18. The contradictions which prevail on the sub- iect of “ the phenomenal and the substantial in cog- Theremain- J ing contra- nition,” “the relative and the absolute in cognition” — errorswhich originate wholly, although remotely, in the fundamental contradiction expressed in Counter¬ proposition I., and which enjoy the special advocacy of psychology — are corrected in Propositions XIV. XV. XVI. XVII. XVIII. XIX. XX. XXL And Proposition XXII., with which the epistemology concludes, has for its object the separation of the necessary laws (to which expression is given in the twenty-one preceding propositions) from the contin¬ gent laws of cognition. The main purpose of Pro- 53G INSTITUTES OF METAPHYSIC. The leading contradiction which the ag- noiology cor¬ rects. position XXIL is to show that the Absolute in our cognition is not, of necessity, the Absolute in all cognition, except in so far as its essentials are con¬ cerned ; that is to say, except to this extent, that it (the absolute, namely, and substantial in all cogni¬ tion) must consist of these two elements — whatever their nature may be — a subject and an object to¬ gether. So much, then, in regard to the contradic¬ tions affecting “ Knowing and the Known which the epistemology subverts, and in regard to the truths which it substitutes in their room. The popular and psychological errors in respect to igno¬ rance have next to be passed under review. 19. The leading contradiction which the agnoi- ology corrects consists in the affirmation, express or implied, that there can be an ignorance of that of which there can be no knowledge. When tested by the criterion of necessary truth, the contradictory character of this assertion is obvious. It amounts to a denial that ignorance is ignorance. Because ignorance is a defect ; but no defect is involved in not knowing what is not to he known on any terms by ^^y intelligence. And therefore to affirm that a nescience of the absolutely unknowable is ignorance, is to affirm that ignorance is no defect; in other words, is to affirm that ignorance is not ignorance, — is not what it is. This error is embodied in Counter-proposition III. of the agnoiology, and re- SUMMAEY AND CONCLUSION. 537 futed in the corresponding proposition, which is the feeding truth of this section of the science. 20. The capital contradiction which the agnoi- ology exposes, yields as its progeny the following swarm of contradictions : First, that there can be an ignorance of objects without a subject, (Counter¬ proposition IV.) ; secondly, that there can be ignor¬ ance of material things per se, (Counter-proposition V.) ; thirdly, that there can be an ignorance of the universal without the particular, and of the particu¬ lar without the universal, (Counter-proposition VI.) ; and, fourthly, that there can be an ignorance of the ego per sc, or of the subject without any object, (Counter-proposition VII.) Each of these errors is articulately refuted by its appropriate proposition on the general ground that there can be no ignorance of that which is absolutely unknowable. 21. The concluding contradiction which the ag- noiology despatches, consists in the denial that ob¬ ject plus a subject is the only possible object of ignorance. This denial is expressed in Counter¬ proposition VIII. ; and in opposition to it, the cor¬ rective proposition proves that this synthesis is the only thing of which there can be any ignorance, inasmuch as it is the only thing of which there can be any knowledge. It shows that nothing but this synthesis can be ignored, because nothing but The deriva¬ tive contra¬ dictions wliich it cor¬ rects. The conclud¬ ing contra¬ diction which it cor¬ rects. 538 INSTITUTES OF METAPHYSIC. this synthesis can be known. The contradictions corrected in the ontology have now to be consi¬ dered. 22. Natural thinking has an ontology of its own. The opinions It assorts the absolute existence of material things entertained ° by natural gg if j^ot, also, the absolute existence of imma- tentTy psy'- torial miiids per se. Psychology is less consistent. the subject At times it makes common cause with ordinary of “Being.” , . - . , , . . thinking, and adopts and confirms “ the science of Being,” which it receives at the hands, and on the authority, of popular belief. It contends for the absolute existence of matter by itself, and of mind by itself. Then again it vacillates, and declares that there can be no science of that which absolutely exists — grounding its denial on our alleged ignor¬ ance of “Being in itself.” 23. To correct the contradictions contained in How the on- these Opinions, whether natural or psychological, tology goes ' i ./ o exp'osinVthe this scction of the science takes tions'^^n-'^' is to determine exhaustively the characters of ab- these opin- solute existence, (Prop. I., Ontol.) The next step ions. 1 1 • 1 • T • which it takes is to eliminate or clear off one of the alternatives ; and the conclusion reached is, that Absolute Existence is either that which we know, or that which we are ignorant of. This operation occupies the ontology from Proposition II. to Pro¬ position V. inclusive. SUMMAEY AND CONCLUSION. 539 24. The successful performance of this operation makes everything safe. It renders the system im¬ pregnable in defence, and irresistible in attack. It brings to light, and at the same time refutes, the contradictions entertained by natural thinking in regard to Absolute Existence. Natural thinkinsf holds that material things per se have an abso¬ lute existence, (Counter-proposition VI.) ; that particular things have an absolute existence, (Coun¬ ter-proposition VII.) ; that minds per se have an absolute existence, (Counter-proposition VIII.) These assertions are annihilated by their anta¬ gonist Propositions, VI. VII. VIII., by means of the consideration that what absolutely exists must he either that which we know, or that which we are ignorant of. But matter p)er se, the particular per se., the ego per se, are what we neither know nor are ignorant of (as has been de¬ monstrated in the course of the epistemology and the agnoiology) ; and these, therefore, are not things which absolutely exist, or of which true and substantial Being can be predicated without giving utterance to a contradiction. 25. The ninth counter-proposition expresses the common, and to a large extent the psychological, opinion in regard to the origin of knowledge. It declares that matter is the cause of our perceptive cognitions. But this opinion is contradictory, be- Exposure and refutation of tliese contra¬ dictions. The ninth contradiction whicli the ontology cor¬ rects. 540 INSTITUTES OF METAPHYSIC. cause matter cannot be the cause of our cofifnitions, inasmuch as it is a mere part of our cognitions, as stated in the demonstration of the corrective pro¬ position. 26. The tenth counter-proposition is a mere repe- ^o^ntradiction counter-propositions VI. VII. VIII. It is ontology cor- introduced because it is the antagonist proposition r6ct8. -p-. , , , to Proposition X., which overthrows it, and demon¬ strates what, and what alone, absolutely exists. It is conceived that the conclusion established by this proposition (a conclusion which is equally infallible, whether absolute existence be that which we know, or that which we are ignorant of) — namely, that minds together with what they apprehend are the only veritable existences, and that minds without any apprehensions, and apprehensions without any mind, are mere absurdities — is so far from beins' an obnoxious or extravagant conclusion, that it is, on the contrary, in the highest degree consonant with the dictates of an enlightened common-sense, and gratifying to feelings at once sober and exalted. 27. And lastly, the eleventh counter-proposition JontraSn expression to the atheistic conclusion into OTtoiogy ®cor. Ordinary thinking and psychology inevitably fall, after performing their descent through the whole preceding series of contradictions. The counter-propositions hang organically together, and SUMMAEY AND CONCLUSION. . 541 form a coherent chain no less than the proposi¬ tions ; and this, the last link in the series, traces its genealogy in a long but unbroken line up to the cardinal contradiction set forth in the first counter¬ proposition of the epistemology — just as the propo¬ sition by which it is overthrown, and the truth of theism established, owes its whole strength to the first proposition of that section of the science. The crowning contradiction, which the system corrects by means of Proposition XL, is the supposition that the material universe by itself is non-contra¬ dictory, and accordingly is, or may be, self-subsistent and eternal. 28. Such then are the cardinal contradictions in¬ cident to natural thinking, and confirmed by psy- By the cor- chological science ; and such, in brief, is the manner these contra- . 1 ■ 1 1 T • dictions, the in which they have been pointed out and corrected system iias redeemed its by these Institutes. Accordingly, it is submitted that the system has executed the work which it undertook, and has redeemed the principal pledge which it held out at the commencement. 29. By the foregoing summary, in which the sys¬ tem has been exhibited mainly in its polemical xhe utility of character as corrective of the contradictions inci- study. ^ dent to popular opinion, the utility of the science of metaphysics is placed in a conspicuous light. If philosophy were a science which aimed merely at 542 INSTITUTES OF METAPHYSIC. As a disci¬ pline of ne¬ cessary and demonstrated truth. the positive establishment of certain truths of its own, without having for its vocation to challenge and put right the fundamental verdicts of man's natural judgment, the study of it might, not unrea¬ sonably, be declined on the ground that, by the exercise of our ordinary faculties, we were already in possession of as much truth as we wanted, or as was good for us. If truth comes to us spontane¬ ously, why should we not be satisfied with it ; why should we fatigue ourselves in the pursuit of any other truth than that which comes to us from na¬ ture ? Why, indeed? But what if no truth, what if nothing but error comes to us from nature ; what if the ordinary operation of our faculties involves us in interminable contradictions, and lands us in atheism at last? In that case, it is conceived that the usefulness of philosophy, as corrective of these spontaneous fallacies, and as emendatory of the in¬ herent infirmities of the human intellect, cannot be too highly estimated, or its study too earnestly re¬ commended. 30, Its importance is greatly enhanced by the consideration that, when rightly cultivated, it deals only with necessary and demonstrated truths. Its conclusions are not optional opinions to be em¬ braced, or not as people please: they are insuper¬ able necessities of thinking, to understand which is to assent to them. Truth grounded on mere pro- SUMMAKY AND CONCLUSION. 543 bable evidence is ever obnoxious to vicissitude ; its acceptance or rejection is determined by the hu¬ mours or idiosyncrasies of individual minds ; it comes home to us more forcibly at one time than at another. It varies with the variation of our feelings and our partialities. But the demonstrated truths of philosophy stand exempt from all these disturbing influences. They enlist in their favour neither wishes nor desires. They appeal not to the feelings of men, but simply to their catholic reason. The mind may fall away from them ; but they can never fall away. Human passion cannot obscure them ; human weakness cannot infect them ; but, when once established, they enjoy for ever an im¬ munity from all those mutations to which the truths of mere contingency are exposed. THE END. PRINTED BY WILLIAM BLACKWOOD AND SONS, EDINBURGH, t ► I r I r ■ [ ■ 37 0- ^4.6^0 I U . 10 2-I.Vj ' ^ ^ mi PHI bbopIImS BKi|W5|H Ah ' l^'M WUm w m w f\m ik^\khA ■'. 'y ’ -. ' ^ -. ‘ A M tiiwiiHmrT^Mftf r Tnr^ '-• • , ■ rf''v’ .;™:^. ’Si^jii,' i -> ^ .. V ' ■ ::'^ :.V 'V ■■^■' ^ '^'V- A-'^' 'i'-- f VA 3 »' . .:. i